Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 22

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 21 January 23 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. There is consensus to rename the article. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judean Free Government

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

A hoax, but not quite blatant enough for

WP:SPEEDY. Not surprisingly, none of the bios of the people linked in this article mention this "Free Government". Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's where I saw it too. While I'm no expert, like the help desk inquirer, I don't see any sources for a "Judean Free Government" or a "People's Assembly". Maybe hoax is too strong a word, but something is definitely not right if the terminology is so screwy. Also, what function does this article serve? First Jewish–Roman War covers the same ground in as much detail and with much more context. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's some explanatory translation going on somewhere? For "People's Assembly" see Sanhedrin? I think a separate well-sourced article would be needed -- there looks enough to justify spinout from previous target, and a government should have a separate article even if permanently relatively short ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the Sanhedrin (literally assembly) which was invovled, Josephus does describe an assembly of the people in the Temple (organized by Simeon ben Gamliel) , which preceded forming of the provisional government. Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are distinct. The great assembly (or Knesset) is the namesake of the modern Knesset (as well as the basis for choosing 120 MKs).Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The book given as Ref 2 does support the statement where it is cited (p. 11) Bradley W. Root (17 October 2014). First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examination of the Sources. Mohr Siebeck. p. 11.
    ISBN 978-3-16-153489-8. and also refers to "the rebel government" (p. 181) and "the government in Judea that left the region [Galilee] in a state of anarchy" (p. 34). Maybe the article should be retitled "Rebel government in Judea AD **-**" or similar: Bhunacat10 (talk), 13:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The page title is an issue (but Judean rebel government / Judean provisional government would be supported by sources, as would a number of other permutations). There was a provisional or rebel government in Judea in 66-68. See for instance - [2], [3], Ilan, Tal, and Jonathan J. Price. "Seven Onomastic Problems in Josephus'" Bellum Judaicum"." The Jewish Quarterly Review (1993): 189-208., or this Routledge book (which uses provisional government as well as the occasional Jerusalem junta). The article is not a hoax - the sole glaring issue I see is the use of "free". Icewhiz (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obverse: "Shekel, Israel. Year 3." Reverse
: "Jerusalem the Holy"
  • Keep It's not a badly written article. It gives a pretty accurate description of the short-lived provisional government that existed during a Revolt often described as the most serious rebellion in the entire history of the Roman Empire (obviously referring to internal rebellions, not foreign wars, wars of conquest, and invasions of the Empire.) I suggest we go with a modern usage: Judean provisional government (66-68 AD). Note that it was a "real" government while it lasted, mustering and paying armies, issuing coinage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that we have an article, First Jewish Revolt coinage, about the coins minted by this government. (Similar to Early American currency#Continental currency, except, George Washington could call on the French Navy to outflank the British Empire at Yorktown, but the Judeans has to fight the Romans without the support of the King of France. And so they lost.) There is no consensus name for the rebel government of Judea in this period, invalidating comments above about failed searches for "Judean Free government". E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I was the one who originally thought something was up and posted to the help desk. To be clear, the questionable issues for me were specifically the name (and its use in other articles about the first Jewish-Roman War as well), as well as the article mentioning a "Judean People's Assembly" (which could maybe be a reference to the Sanhedrin, but does not appear to be referred to with this name). The Jewish revolt itself definitely seems legit, but the particular terminology made me suspicious of a subtle joke on the "People's Front of Judea/Judean Peoples' Front" from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Like it was referring to real things, just with anachronistic terminology. That being said, there were apparently some references in Josephus' Jewish War to Ananus (a leader of the Jewish rebellion) as being "unique in his love for liberty and an enthusiast for democracy", and some coins minted from the Jewish revolt being inscribed with mentions of freedom, so the terminology might not be that crazy, but then on the other hand, it may have just served to make a subtle Monty Python joke here less immediately noticeable. Again considering there's still little to no sources specifically claiming a "Judean Free Government" or "Judean People's Assembly" HelpPls? (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks all. That's my remaing concerns gone. Prefer [[Judean provisional government (66-68 AD)]] as there was another rebel government formed in 132CE - see Bar Kokhba revolt ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 21:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
strike "AD". Either use "CE" or no era label. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 22:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should probably go with [[Judean provisional government (66-70 AD)]] because 70 is the year the Temple and the city of Jerusalem were destroyed; and the last year coins were minted (coins are valuable in setting dates because they are so concrete.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down with that: Judean provisional government (66-70 CE).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel (company)

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

All

WP:MILL coverage, nothing in depth and the rest are listings. Fails GNG/NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Ping the reviewer also KeepDelete After reading and rereading the article I have decided that this may not have been my best decision but I do go by what I said when I reviewed it that news articles would be sufficient coverage. [Username Needed] 12:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why you said to ping the reviewer, as the reviewer yourself? Can you provide that significant coverage, Username Needed? Because the sources in the article don't establish that:
  • I thought I saw two news sources in there, but I may have been mistaken. [Username Needed] 10:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the sources in question more thoroughly (something I should have done already) I have re-decided that there is only one shaky at best suitable source, and have changed my vote accordingly. [Username Needed] 11:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So aside from the lack of coverage I can find, it's also pretty spammy. Praxidicae (talk) 00:58, 25 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 23:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph E. Kronenwetter

Ralph E. Kronenwetter (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)

Being the mayor of a small city (pop. 4K) and losing two elections do not satisfy

WP:NPOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:52, 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 withdrawn. clpo13(talk) 23:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brooks (Wisconsin politician)

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

Non-notable politician, fails GNG, only coverage is WP:1E over some remarks that caused him to resign.HouseOfChange (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing my nomination of the page for AfD. He passes NPOL so GNG is irrelevant here. Apologies. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, not that it makes a difference under NPOL, but the subject did not resign from the legislature after those remarks, just his position as assistant majority leader in the legislature. I've added some sources to help clarify the situation.
talk) 00:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Bearcat and Bakazaka are correct. I should have looked more closely at NPOL before making this AfD. I will withdraw it. Apologies for my mistake. HouseOfChange (talk) 01:51, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Thompson

Phillip Thompson (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)

Entirely promotional article about a candidate in the upcoming Australian federal election, does not meet any typical

WP:GNG notability standards. No significant media coverage at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:47, 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. Sandstein 19:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin E. Smith

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

A poet who self publishes a magazine of his work. He is also an author of 2 poetry books but they didn't attract any coverage of note. Tagged for notability since 2010. Szzuk (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:10, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Haughey

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

No evidence of reliable independent sources about the subject. Does not meet

WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:46, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICHABOD

ICHABOD (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)

Ridiculously promotional article based on some random local sources and no independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? 'Random local sources' and 'no independent coverage'?
This article has a reference to a full thirty minute long interview from graffradio, the largest street-art interview source in history. It contains an image from a flickr group dedicated to photos of this mans artwork that has existed for almost 12 years with no goal other than so share free images of his name. It contains a reference to Atlas Obscura, the largest independent American geographic encyclopedia. A reference to Year Round Metal Enjoyment, a classified and referenced documentary released at various film festivals in 2015. To Google Maps's official landmark designation for heaven's sake. Any editor can plainly see that this is worthy of a genuine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00aa0 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantial source here to establish notability. Fails
    WP:CREATIVE. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
PlotHelpful can you please tell me which aspect this article does not comply with? If you read the reference you'll find this is a prolific artist that has influenced many people, has become a cult figure and is the creator of a well known geographic monument outside of their artistic circle. What exactly do they NOT have to be granted a Wikipedia article? 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the blue links we've cited, they'll take you to Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable, verifiable sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and "notable" here does not mean famous. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:RS One "source" is a Google search about Skull Cliff and not ICHABOD. Aurornisxui (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't know whether you've misunderstood the link, but that 'google search' is actually not a search. It's a link to the google maps reviews of the site of the monument that contains 16 different reviews of the art. This was the reference I used to show that this artist has made a prolific art piece and if you search you'll find this is actually the highest-rated art piece on Google Maps in the whole county. With respect, I do not think your criticism is at all valid. 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to replace the Google tags and replace them with that of the individual authors if you want. 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is for, 00aa0. You also have written a lot of detailed information for someone, per your article "not much is known about." As far as your sources, they are pretty much all useless. Here's a detailed analysis:
  1. a blog/podcast - not even remotely notable as a source, nor is it an independent reliable source.
  2. a blog- not reliable, not
    independent
  3. interview on some random blog
  4. another blog
  5. a single brief mention that he is interviewed, not reliable, no independent
  6. oh, what's this? a reliable source? - no, it's a blog.
  7. a google search
  8. a map
  9. a website to buy stuff
So all in all, not a single source is worth anything in establishing
notability. Praxidicae (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you understand the culture of said article's interest? Do you want an autobiography from him or something? Do yo you not frequent the circles of the article you're banhammering? Feel free to go through the Wikipedia pages of street artists and look through their sources, you will find they mostly consist of magazines from varying names that frequently are not available online. This page is entirely inline with other artists pages. Issues like this are what arise when users try and gatekeep topics they have no interest in. I don't think one fully realises the gravity of denying ICHABOD a wikipedia article. Do a search for him, a proper one, and you'll quickly realise his impact on bombing graffiti is far beyond what some everyman wikipedia-editor judges topics to be. All the published interviews you've labelled as simply 'a blog' and 'not reliable' just shows how far out of touch you are with the topic in hand. You literally called the largest graffiti magazine in the world 'not reliable'. 00aa0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sign your edits in discussions. Praxidicae (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 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 keep. There is consensus to keep in that GNG is met, although obvious the article is in need of significant improvement. There are no policy-based arguments for "delete", including the nomination statement. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proteza koniecpolska

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

Not notable עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:44, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Alastra

Tommy Alastra (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 article was first created by the subject's PR, and deleted. It was then re-created by a sock of a banned user, probably for pay. The third iteration is by a user with a small number of edits, with some evidence of promotional editing. The sources in the article are namechecks and press releases.

WP:GNG. I strongly believe this is a paid article. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:44, 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. Sandstein 19:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valeri V. Cordón

AfDs for this article:
Valeri V. Cordón (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable subject that continues to fail

WP:BASIC. As stated in the previous nomination, primary sources are not usable to establish notability, and multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America1000 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We still have the same situation we did a few months ago. We have clearly 3rd party mentions. This recreation of nominations is getting tiresome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentions ≠ significant coverage, which is required to qualify notability. North America1000 03:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:06, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deepu

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

Delete Fails

WP:BEFORE shows he: had a birthday; got married; was interviewed for a 3-paragraph piece in indiatimes.com. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:41, 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. Sandstein 19:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

17 Parachute Infantry Brigade (Bangladesh)

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

No sources cited, and searches of the usual types found none. Author has a history of creating problematic Bangladesh military-related articles (e.g. School of Infantry and Tactics-Bangladesh Army (A10), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabir Ahamed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Para-Commando Battalion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Five power stations, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Muktibahini ParaCommando landing at Tangail, 1st Bengal Luncher (G3), Top most elite special forces of the world (A10), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Force - ParaCommando Division [not closed yet]). I would redirect to a parent formation if there were any evidence for the existence of the purported unit or its supposed components. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Seems like there is a possible COI as well. Skirts89 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a start this article is contradictory. It's title is "17 Parachute Infantry Brigade" but it is about 21 Parachute Infantry Brigade which is claimed to include 17 Parachute Infantry Battalion. If such basics can't be got right then the article is worthless.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per nom. SRS 00 t@lk, 11:50, 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. Sandstein 19:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Illuminator (backlight)

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

Unsourced. I did some searching, but could only find mentions in the context of stores selling watches with this feature. Tagged as non-notable for five years with no improvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 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. Sandstein 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl A. Esplin

AfDs for this article:
Cheryl A. Esplin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that continues to fail

WP:BASIC
. See below for a source analysis from the previous AfD discussion.

Source Analysis
Pugmire, Genelle (28 March 2016). "Q and A with Sister Cheryl Esplin, first counselor in Primary General Presidency". Daily Herald. Primary source consisting of an interview with the subject
Marianne Holman, "Always involved in His great work", Church News, August 14, 2010. Primary source: not usable to establish notability
"Cheryl A. Esplin", Liahona, May 2010] Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Stack, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "New Primary presidency chosen for LDS children".
Salt Lake Tribune
.		 A single quotation from the subject, making the source primary in nature, and also Not
WP:SIGCOV
"New General Authorities, Young Men Presidency and Primary Presidency Changes Announced", Mormon Newsroom, April 4, 2015. Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Walch, Ted (27 March 2015). "Preparing to split up, LDS General Primary Presidency looks back on 5 years of service together". Deseret News. Not
WP:SIGCOV
: Consists of one sentence about the subject, with the remaining content consisting of quotations.
"Church gets visit and training from women leaders". St. Cloud Times. 7 October 2013. (?) – Source searches are not providing the article. It's title suggests that it likely consists of routine coverage.
Walch, Tad (21 November 2015). "Mormon women leaders visit Asia". Deseret News. (?) – Source searches are not providing the article. It's title suggests that it likely consists of routine coverage.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (20 March 2014). "A first: Photos of Mormon women leaders in Conference Center". Salt Lake Tribune. Not
WP:SIGCOV
: A single name check
"First Presidency Announces New Primary General Presidency", Newsroom,
LDS Church
, 2016-04-02		 Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (7 April 2015). "Defend 'traditional families' and beware of 'worldly dogma,' Mormons told".
Salt Lake Tribune
.		 Not
WP:SIGCOV
: Consists of one sentence about the subject, with the remaining content consisting of quotations.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (3 April 2010). "Families in peril, LDS leaders warn". Salt Lake Tribune. Not
WP:SIGCOV
: A single name check in the image caption. The subject is not mentioned in the article body at all.
Christiansen, Barbara (28 March 2015). "LDS Women's Session focuses on family, home". Daily Herald.e Not
WP:SIGCOV
: Four very short sentences, with the remaining content consisting of quotes. This has no biographical information about the subject, just the subject's opinion relative to their religion.
Stark, Peggy Fletcher (9 October 2014). "Be civil in opposing gay marriage, Mormon apostle says". Salt Lake Tribune. Not
WP:SIGCOV
: One short sentence about the subject, and a single (primary) quotation.
"General Auxiliary Leaders: Sister Cheryl A. Esplin", lds.org Primary source: not usable to establish notability
Teaching Our Children to Understand. Cheryl A. Esplin - April 2012 General Conference. Daily Herald Primary source: not usable to establish notability

– North America1000 17:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The so called primary sources are secondary newspaper sources. The attempt to call others not significant coverage is an abuse of the term. The whole nomination is misussing terms. Articles published in news papers, subject to editors other than the subject, are not primary sources. This is part of a long standing pattern of nominations seeking to exclude a huge swath of Latter-day Saint sources. This nomination is even worse considering it is a rehash of a previous nomination. In the last there were two keep votes and no one supported this editors crusade of seeking to wipe out articles on Latter-day Saints, especially Latter-day Saint women. This is becoming tedious. The analysis involves moving the goal posts. Articles do not need to provide biographical information to be signifant coverage. If papers feel the persons remarks are worth reporting on, than this is a sign of notability. Every source adds at least some to notability, and at least 3 are independet, 3rd party sources that have enough coverge to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "the so called primary sources are secondary newspaper sources":
  • Church News is owned by the LDS Church. This is a primary source; it is not an independent, secondary source.
  • Mormon Newsroom is the official newsroom of the LDS Church. This is a primary source; it is not an independent, secondary source.
  • Liahona (magazine) is the official international magazine of The LDS Church; it is not an independent, secondary source.
  • Also, this nomination has nothing to do with the subject's gender as insinuated above, and notability is not gender-based.
  • Furthermore, passing mentions and name checks ≠ significant coverage, and just do not qualify notability. North America1000 03:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that user JohnPackLambert as creator of this article is not an uninvolved editor. valereee (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input on independence of sources required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with the nominator's evaluation of sources as not independent (lds.org, Liahona, Church News) or routine coverage and quotes from church PR that are not significant coverage of this article's subject. The two sources with question marks above are no better. The St. Cloud Times article's entire coverage of the subject is "Cheryl A. Esplin, a counselor in the General Primary Presidency of the Church, provided training to women who support parents in teaching children." The Deseret News story on the visit to Asia is actually the church's newsroom PR blurb, lightly edited for republication, and is therefore not independent. It doesn't add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so the subject does not pass
    talk) 23:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 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. Sandstein 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Economic conductivity

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

The first part of the article seems to be about the term as a concept but cites nothing to suggest it passes

we don’t do. SITH (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like OR. Perhaps it is an Essay. Perhaps it is a niche term. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 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. Sandstein 19:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie-Narco

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

No sources in article for preceding 11 years. A BEFORE finds copious sources such as press releases, analyst reports, etc., but nothing constituting SIG,

WP:INDEPENDENT or RS coverage. (Note there are false positives due to an EP also named Dixie Narco.) Part of a walled garden with Crane Co. as its centerpiece. Chetsford (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Crane Merchandising Systems. Crane Co. has unified all of its brands (National, Dixie-Narco, Automatic Products, and GPL) under the CMS umbrella and the D-N brand no longer exists. ANDROS1337TALK 13:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So I appear to be in my normal situation of starting out ready to vote delete, but by the end of doing
WP:BEFORE thinking that notability is just about met. KEEP FOARP (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Which criteria are you applying to the references in order to establish notability? You should apply
HighKing++ 18:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 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 redirect to

List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters#Darth Nihilus. After closing this, I will apply full protection as suggested. Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Darth Nihilus

AfDs for this article:
Darth Nihilus (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)

Relatively minor figure in a video game. RS tends to either be either brief or in a list - both lacking the sort of significant coverage we would expect to meet GNG. Suggest this redirect be restored possibly to

List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters#Darth Nihilus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect from previous AfD. It doesn't seem the recent attempt to assert notability (while laudable) clears the bar. Fleeting third-party references, but neither substantial nor reasonably in-depth. --EEMIV (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect I've since had a quick go at cleaning the article up a bit, and I think there is some information worth porting over. I do appreciate that work went into trying to establish notability, and it shows Nihilus has had some recurring coverage. But there's not much at all in the way of real commentary -- mostly just short lists that just recap plot details. If I believed there was room for further expansion and chance to proof notability this might be a "keep", but I haven't really found much to support it. There is a
    List of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic characters article, so fortunately this isn't just a choice of whether to cover Nihilus at all or not -- we can still cover him sufficiently there. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 25 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. Despite the fact that several "keep" !votes are not at all policy-based, there clearly is no consensus to delete this article at this time. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Hadwin

AfDs for this article:
Courtney Hadwin (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 article has been previously redirected to the article about season 13 of AGT, and the redirect has twice been replaced with an article. Listing it to gather consensus to keep a redirect. She hasn't won any talent shows, and isn't notable beyond being a talent show contestant. The article itself is complete showbiz fluff with no substance. Slashme (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to
    The Voice Kids (UK series 1), meets no notability criteria. My recommendation would be to prevent recreation of the article after it is redirected.Onel5969 TT me 13:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are valid accomplishments and validations that solidify this Artist and this Article should be kept available/ Al Holbrook Music.
  • Keep She signed a record deal a few weeks ago with Arista and Syco. Does that qualify as an "accomplishment" for a 14-year old?Jwaneditor (talk)
Just having signed a record deal doesn't meet any of the criteria at the subject specific guideline. --Slashme (talk) 15:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google search shows a ton of mainstream media coverage beyond what a typical AGT contestant gets. Kmusser (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a P.S. she's now been on 3 television talent shows, so where to target a redirect is no longer obvious. Kmusser (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Taking into account that 1) at the time of this writing, googling for Courtney Hadwin returns 4,560,000 hits, 2) newspapers such as The Guardian (UK), The Times (UK), Los Angeles Times (US), to name a few, published articles on her, 3) her performances have been viewed more than 100 million times on YouTube, I feel it would be preposterous not to keep this Wikipedia article. I agree, however, that the article should be cleaned up. Daveohlsson (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia needs her. That quite remarkable voice and character make her a must. Bmcln1 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if the consensus will be "keep" anyway, but for future reference, please remember that this is
remarkable her voice or character is. --Slashme (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. She has a quite NOTABLE voice and character and it's being thoroughly noted by several million people. Bmcln1 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haha --Slashme (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to AGT. I think she is notable enough to keep this page as a redirection. Current article is a little bit hasty. As stated before, at this point her international recognition is (almost?) solely due to her appearance in the AGT show. Other achievements are rather localized to the UK. I would keep this redirection for awhile and see if there is going to happen another major public breakthrough in her career in order to gather enough information to compile an article that will be in full accordance with Wikipedia rules. Themandrak (talk) 09:35, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Aggarwal

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

Non-notable businessman. Trivial PR awards do not establish notability. A Google search revealed no independent in-depth sources. One detailed article was published here in The Economic Times, but that's mostly just an interview with only one paragraph of independent journalistic content (and that's some gossip about a minor recent controversy). 1-2 similar "articles" in other PR platforms exist (for example YourStory and TheNewsMinute), but no reliable independent coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Don't believe the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:42, 26 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsadawut Luengsuntorn

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

Not seeing any evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:05, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Prakash Arya

Ved Prakash Arya (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)

Died in a tragic accident, but no in-depth coverage of his life and career can be found. Fails

WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:02, 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 redirect to Ageas. Tone 15:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RIAS Insurance

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

Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Redirect then; still not seeing anything worth merging. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:ATD-M that would immediately improve the merge target article. North America1000 13:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:25, 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. Tone 15:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Effects Society Award for Outstanding Visual Effects in an Effects Driven Feature Motion Picture

Visual Effects Society Award for Outstanding Visual Effects in an Effects Driven Feature Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage about this specific award. The winners are already included in the main article of the Visual Effects Society. There is no need for an independent article here, just to list the nominees. wikitigresito (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. And for the fact it has the word "Effects" three times in the same award name. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 18:03, 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.

The result was delete. Tone 15:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Badminton

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

An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable speaker. Does not meet

WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/MrVanDigital with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No evidence of meeting any notability standards. Being a "futurist" and organizing your own events to speak at do not show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 15:44, 26 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. If anybody wants to merge some of this content elsewhere, I can userfy these articles upon request. Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of positive integers and factors

List of positive integers and factors (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)
  • Parallel (essentially, a reformatted fork) to other number articles.
  • Requires citations.
  • "Prime Factors" column is redundant to the misnamed "Divisor Pairs" (actually, factorization).
    Actually, both are redundant to a column "Prime factorization", which isn't there, but could be populated by a LUA module.
  • "Distinction" column is unmaintainable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can think of a number of other reasons why this article shouldn't be here, but let's see if someone can come up with a reason it should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pages split out after the nomination and now included in the nomination:

List of positive integers and factors/2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of positive integers and factors/3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of positive integers and factors/4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of positive integers and factors/5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The "Some distinctions" column was meant to apply to the number, not necessarily to its factors. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep: I am the creator of this list. I would like to make the following points:
    • This list is only ten hours old and is still under construction. I appreciate your prompt attention, but I think we should withhold judgement for a few weeks.
    • Citations are included in the linked articles. This is common for lists.
    • I created this list as a single 10,000 row table to test load times. I can break this list into shorter tables on multiple pages or on a single page. I have yet to decide. I would appreciate your input.
    • This list duplicates some of the information contained in several other articles. However, this list brings together this information in a table with a simple format that is easily read by both novice and sophisticated users.
    • I believe the "Divisor pairs" column heading is appropriate, but I am certainly open to suggestions.
    • I changed the name of the "Distictions" column to "Some distictions" to avoid confusion. This column could contain virtually anything, but I think editors should use their discretion. I appreciate your comments.
    • I believe this list contains valuable information that many users will find useful. I've used my own version of this list for over 20 years.
I really appreciate your consideration. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:REDUNDANTFORK (without merging, as the added content over the existing articles is, as Arthur Rubin already states, unmaintainable). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't understand your concern about maintainability. I certainly don't have any problems. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: I've split this list into five tables on five pages. This should make the list far more manageable. The list is now down to #791 on Special:LongPages. I could split this list into ten pages to reduce the size further.  Buaidh  talk contribs 03:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: Buaidh, can I ask the rational behind creating this page? It's possible that this will help us determine whether it is sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia. As to the objections about maintainability, I do not believe that should be an issue. Our understanding of these numbers are not being revised, and it is of finite length.
    talk) 05:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Separating the long list into several subarticles (and I don't think a subarticle title like List of positive integers and factors/2 conforms to MOS) does not address other issues raised. You say this list "brings together this information"; why didn't you propose a merger of the other similar articles rather than duplicating them? If a reader would be better served with certain information in a single place (which I often support), then combine the information rather than adding redundancy (which I do not). However, I doubt any reader will be coming to Wikipedia in search of the factors of 8648; this goes beyond the realm of being encyclopedic. Reywas92Talk 08:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Table of prime factors as an artilce on an existing topic. I think the tables created here are superior, not least because of the narrative additions in the "Some distinctions" column. However its clear that past a certain point we start running out of things to say in that column...--Pontificalibus 10:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are multiple issues, as noted above:
    1. The article is too long. (This might be resolved by splitting it, but....)
    2. The description column is unmaintainable. (Will anyone notice if a vandal notes something in the line for 4253?) Before that column is populated, a verifiable methodology for determining (and populating) what goes there needs to be determined.
    3. The "Prime factors" column should be "Prime factorization", and should be calculated via the LUA module.
    4. The "Divisor pairs" column should, if included at all, be replaced by "Factors". However, this is one of the fields most frequently vandalized in individual number articles. In addition, this is sufficiently complicated, that if the author made a few mistakes, we'd probably never find them unless someone went to the effort of regenerating the table from time to time.
    5. The split article titles violate
      WP:MOS
      . (This could be resolved, but the author probably wouldn't go along with the necessary changes.) The split tables also are improperly indexed.
    6. Has anyone verified the colors for
      accessibility
      ? Furthermore, the colors can and should be maintained by a modification of the LUA factorization module.
  • Response: I'm happy to address the concerns expressed here and to modify this list as appropriate. The purpose of this AfD entry is to determine whether a list like this should even exist on Wikipedia, not whether it needs to be modified. (Wikipedia has substantial articles on important topics such as Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr., PhD.)
I've split this list into five pages to address length concerns. We can split this list further if there is a consensus. We can certainly change the column headings and indexing if there is a consensus. The "Some distinctions" column is merely to alert the user to other interesting topics for further exploration. I merely added some things I felt were interesting. There are no required or prohibited entries. We can certainly address criteria for inclusion.
Vandalism can be repaired by reversion to previous edits. We can even lock this list if vandalism is a major concern. To maintain this list, I merely download it to an Excel spreadsheet. I converted this list from a personal HTML page I've used for many years. The row colorization is merely an aid to casual examination and does not create accessibility issues.
We can certainly address mergers to avoid duplication. A certain amount of duplication is warranted if it aids the user in pursuit of different topic objectives.
This list is intended as a guide to interested users, and not a monument to number theory. Perhaps we should lighten-up.
Thanks for all your interest.  Buaidh  talk contribs 16:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address the redundancy issue? We may have
Robert Underdunk Terwilliger Jr. Anyone thinking of creating such an article ought to focus their efforts on improving Sideshow Bob. Why should we have an article List of positive integers and factors if the content is already covered in the articles mentioned above?--Pontificalibus 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The content of this list is covered in many different articles. We may need to merge articles. Each of these articles has a different format and different content. Before we start deleting articles, as this AfD entry proposes, we need to contemplate how each of these articles is used and how they may be optimally combined. To merge articles probably means either a loss of information or overly complicating existing articles. I've been involved in a number of these discussions and understand the issues involved. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I was egregious. I only have 207,493 edits. Mea culpa.  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Table of prime factors was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of prime factors, and Table of divisors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of divisors. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if I inadvertently stepped into a longstanding mathematics dispute. I did not mean to ruffle any feathers. I normally work elsewhere on Wikipedia, but I thought this table might be of interest. Apparently, I was wrong. Thanks all the same. The elderly curmudgeon,  Buaidh  talk contribs 04:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, there are questions about the suitability of this specific implementation of the list, and fears that it may duplicate existing content. I share those fears about the later, but I believe in this case the implementation is vastly superior to existing content. As such, I believe the effort should be kept while we determine how we wish to implement this general class of pages, with the intent of having this page become the 'standard'.
    talk) 05:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Perhaps we should wait and see how all these relevant articles could be improved. This list could be expanded or compacted. The name of this list could be changed to something more appropriate. I'm open to whatever changes a consensus feels are needed. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: I have not altered these tables, but I have fixed the page names, table names, indexing, header, and footer. I would appreciate your comments. I 'm having a problem with the navbox not compressing appropriately. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article specifically with no preference on the other 4. Could always consider only leaving in the notable numbers (like the Fibonaccis, square, etc. – with sidenotes in the table). ––
    (talk) (contribs) 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What happened to
    WP:BEFORE C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."? RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That's a request to consider allowing time, and perhaps the nominator did consider doing so. An alternative view might be "If you think a new article isn't suitable for Wikipedia, consider nominating for deletion immediately so that editors don't waste time developing something that may ultimately be deleted".--Pontificalibus 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list is finished unless a consensus wishes to add to or remove entries from the "Some distinctions" column. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The List of positive integers and factors page only contains 1 through 2000. The information in the ten tables of the Table of prime factors are contained in this list. I would suggest removing the ten tables and moving the article to Properties of natural numbers. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 05:03, 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. Tone 15:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Shaner

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

I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to indicate that

WP:PROF are met. This is the most recent version of the article prior to copyvio blanking. This book review is the best independent source I can find. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the aforementioned link is indeed the latest copy of this biography, I see no significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. Most of the sources are by him and the others don't appear independent. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and also the following draft:
Draft:David E. Shaner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Notability in either the article or the draft is no more than marginal, and both are non-

promotional. If the promotional language were cleaned out, the resulting stub would not be sufficient to be worth keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

notability, especially ipso facto notability, the stub is worthy. Not all stubs are worthy, and I meant that this one would not be worthy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 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. Tone 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2007 ICC World Twenty20 statistics

2007 ICC World Twenty20 statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These articles provide detailed statistical information for individual editions of the

WP:NOTSTATS. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2009 ICC World Twenty20 statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 ICC World Twenty20 statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 ICC World Twenty20 statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 ICC World Twenty20 statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. The two most important stats - most runs and most wickets - could/should be included in the main article(s), cited in the prose. There's no need for these stand-alone stat-fests. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merging anything useful to the article about the tournament. Far too many stats. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:25, 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 Speedy Keep. Withdrawn by nominator; passes under

(talk) 19:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Cocco

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

Subject is not notable; they neither meet the requirements of

(talk)
13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator, per reasoning above and below --
(talk) 19:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:53, 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 keep. Per

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Elm Guest House claims and controversy

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

The article was created and largely edited from 2012 onwards on the basis and the perspective that the allegations were all, mostly or largely true, all the way until the main accuser 'Nick' was (after in June 2017 charged with 4 counts of making indecent images of children, 1 count of possessing indecent images of children and 1 count of Voyeurism [10]) charged additionally with 12 counts of Perverting the Course of Justice and also 1 count of Fraud, understood to be in connection with him making false allegations of himself being a supposed victim of alleged 'satanic child sexual abuse' by the supposed 'Westminster VIP (Tory) paedophile ring', operated out of the House of Commons, Elm Guest House and Dolphin Square back in the 1970s and the 1980s, on 3 July 2018 [11], and who was then subsequent named on 3 December 2018 as Carl (Carl Stephen) Beech. [12] It almost certainly contains or contained, past or present, various libellous or highly libellous stuff made either by 'Nick' himself or his supporters from Exaro News. Best deleted. (I myself just wouldn't resurrect the article, but I would let others decide on that.) 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 194.207.146.167 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-21 March 2016 sources are not reliable, that's the whole point. -- 194.207.146.167 (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is welcome to improve the article. Edwardx (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per coverage, per sourcing. WP:GNGBabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has to take into account that Carl Beech was charged with perverting the course of justice, but that does not mean that the entire article should be deleted. Instead, it should be rewritten to make sure that it is up to date. It is notable because of the huge amount of time and money that Plod spent on pursuing the "credible and true" allegations of Operation Midland.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic, needs updating not deletion. I don't see any of the "libelous stuff" in the article that the proposer mentions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets
    sources that discuss the subject (a rename to just "Elm Guest House" may be appropriate though). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep per
    WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:48, 26 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. There is no agreement about whether this is a hoax or not, whether it passes

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Wüstenrot-Gruppe

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

I added a speedy delete thing onto the page. I wrote "Still not deleted. Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia refers to a edit description rather than a proper delete." but then felt like taking it off and discussing it here for my same reason. TapLover (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think this is a hoax article (the hoax listed on that page was a bit of long lasting vandalism as far as I can tell). That said, it's not entirely clear if this company passes
    WP:BEFORE-style search were in German (which I don't have the time or ability to evaluate effectively). Iffy★Chat -- 10:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think they have actually been renamed, as they are referred to by this name as recently as 2017. It's probably that the formal registered name is Wüstenrot-Gruppe but that they are known as simply Wüstenrot or Wuestenrot ("ü" is rendered as "ue" in German when a keyboard doesn't have a "ü" character) as a snappier name for marketing purposes. That's pretty standard practice for companies.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I didn't see any German company of this name when I was looking for sources. Could you say where you got that idea from?
    Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oh, I see now. I was searching with "gruppe" or "group" included, rather than for just "Wüstenrot". We need to be careful to disentangle the two companies, but both seem notable. I know some German (I passed an
    Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet
    WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Just a directory listing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 27 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. No objections to deletion (or any commentary at all) after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Exstreamer

AfDs for this article:
Exstreamer (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)

Two minor reviews (the ones in the external links section) are all I can find, likely fails

WP:NPRODUCT. I'm an audiophile myself but I just don't see the notability here. SITH (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 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 redirect to Black Country. Tone 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Country Urban Park

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

A failed urban redevelopment proposal from 12 years ago. From archive.org records their website stopped being updated for at least four years after they didn't get lottery funding, and went offline some time after that.

talk) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, a few words can be added at Black Country as an interesting footnote but not significant enough for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new sources. My research was hardly exhaustive but I fairly easily found new coverage. I suspect there is more. Even if the project is defunct, that wouldn't be a rationale to delete if the coverage is acceptable. Besides, the details of horribly failed public projects can make for fascinating reading. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into
    WP:SUSTAINED applies here-- a brief burst of coverage announcing what was then a future event does not give notability if there is no subsequent coverage. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:06, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Gessa

Cecilia Gessa (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)

Barely sourced BLP of a porn actress who is not demonstrated to fulfill

WP:ENT or WP:PORNBIO. Leefeniaures audiendi audiat 16:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article needs rewriting but the notability is certainly there, Meets ENT & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:27, 27 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. No references to support GNG and it doesn't look like any will be forthcoming. Fifth tier regional amateur leagues are almost never of a sufficiently high standard to be notable. Am happy to restore if sources do surface. Fenix down (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Thailand Amateur League Southern Region

2018 Thailand Amateur League Southern Region (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, and fails notability standards by WP:FOOTBALL Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Adding the following as well for the same reason:[reply]

2018 Thailand Amateur League Bangkok Metropolitan Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Thailand Amateur League Western Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Thailand Amateur League Eastern Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Thailand Amateur League North Eastern Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Thailand Amateur League Northern Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Thailand Amateur League Bangkok Metropolitan Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Thailand Amateur League Southern Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Thailand Amateur League Northern Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Thailand Amateur League North Eastern Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Thailand Amateur League Central Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Thailand Amateur League Eastern Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giant Add a lot more to this AFD, please review your vote. All articles created by the same editor and are of the same topic/reasoning. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234: I strongly suggest you unbundle this AFD ASAP, otherwise it's going to get very messy very quickly, and it will be procedurally closed and you'll have to start again from scratch... GiantSnowman 17:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Giant Do you suggest splitting the leagues from the teams?
I'd suggest unbundling the lot and nominating individually. Bundled nominations rarely work and from recent experience with very similar AfDs, whilst the consensus is this is a non notable level of football unless a club has played in the national cup, there have been dissenters. Whilst they have never provided sources to show GNG, with so many nominations I think it unlikely we could have a clear discussion. Let me know what you want to do but I would suggest I close this as a procedural keep and you renominate individually. Fenix down (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think splitting the leagues from the teams (and having those as individuals) might be smart? Will remove the teams from this AFD. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi cricket team records

Bangladeshi cricket team records (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)

Redundant to List of Bangladesh Test cricket records and List of Bangladesh One Day International cricket records and even Bangladesh national cricket team – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:00, 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 speedy keep. Sources have been found. Deletion no longer an option.

(non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Smint

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

Non-notable breath mint, unsourced. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.lavanguardia.com/se-lleva/20111028/54236553742/david-delfin-disena-para-smint.html
  2. ^ https://www.thedrum.com/news/2013/12/16/mentos-mentos-gum-fruitella-and-smint-star-18m-london-based-outdoor-campaign
  3. ^ https://www.dailystar.co.uk/real-life/470217/women-kiss-19-men-before-right-one-average-study-pub-nightclub
  4. ^ https://www.nporadio1.nl/consument/3247-pepermuntjes-smint-helpen-niet-voor-schone-adem
  • Keep as there appear to be enough sources available for notability, although I wouldn't class the
    Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEI Conlux

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

Completely unreferenced company article. BEFORE finds no significant coverage in RS. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Delete: Aside from the routine announcement of its acquisition, I am seeing little about the company in its own right beyond a product announcement item: [17].No
    Mars, Incorporated article to illustrate the wider activities by that company. AllyD (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks AllyD! Note however that MEI Conlux was not ever part of Mars, Incorporated. That was apparently added to the article in 2011 during a cleanup by another editor. Though I'm sure that MEI does make vending machines that sell Mars candy. Markvs88 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that the references ascribe the innovations to a "Mars Electronics International" is the basis for my suggestion that this is better covered in the main Mars article, rather than following around a sequence of corporate structural changes, renaming, divestment and purchase. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I spent a few minutes looking into this. The firm invented the electronic vending machine, so I'd say it's notable. Markvs88 (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we don't have inherent notability standards for companies which were first to invent vending machines. We have to rely on whether
WP:ROUTINE transaction announcement, (b) one press release, (c) an email from a company officer to the FTC, and (d) a receipt [18]. In my BEFORE I saw each of these sources, however, thorough and accurate BEFORE requires critical analysis of each source of the kind I just conducted, not simply googling for any mention of the company and shotgunning it into the article. Chetsford (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the multiple sources that have been added to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Since the only
WP:INDEPENDENT sources here are three (3) sentences in a 211-page book, and one (1) paragraph in a 241-page book, I'm surprised you take the position that this passes CORPDEPTH on that basis. The other sources Markvs88 added were two company press releases, a payment receipt, and an email from a company officer. Chetsford (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:48, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Sokolovskaya

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

Completely unsourced article. Sokolovskaya is a national titleholder but the pageant itself is barely notable and she competed in no international competitions. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "She competed in no international competitions"? The article could be better formatted, but it clearly states that she has competed in piano competitions in Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, etc. I have not yet checked if she did win first prize in one, but I certainly find sources confirming that she competed, eg [19], [20]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not what I'm talking about. She gained notability for being a beauty pageant titleholder (Miss Azerbaijan), and her article was created largely because she was expected to compete in Miss Universe, but she did not and competed in no other international pageants either. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter why the article was created? The content in the article is largely about her career as a pianist. She could be assessed against
WP:MUSICBIO (or any other relevant criteria). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She gets a few ProQuest hits. (I've added one citation to the article.) Her Spanish-language Wikipedia article has some material not included here. Between her career as a pianist and winning a national modelling competition, that satisfies notability criteria and is more than
    WP:BLP1E. Bondegezou (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
PS: Also helpful to search for "Наталья Соколовская", her name in Russian. I've added some more to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to http://natalia-sokolovskaya.com/stati-v-presse and then go into each article, they each end with a link to some press coverage. You need better Russian than me, but there appear to be some reasonable sources there. Bondegezou (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some of those don't work as links, but http://www.volgaru.ru/index.php?oth&article=6035 and http://www.volgaru.ru/index.php?oth&article=5902 do. Bondegezou (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 12:20, 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 redirect to 1957 African Cup of Nations. A plausible search term. Reliably referenced statistics can be included in the main article and can be retrieved from the page history. Not going to merge as there is a lot of unverified (not to mention excessive) stats listed Fenix down (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1957 African Cup of Nations statistics

1957 African Cup of Nations statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These two articles provide detailed statistical information for individual editions of the

WP:NOTSTATS – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related page:

2013 Africa Cup of Nations statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 12:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Textbook NOTSTATS. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and improve. The topic itself is
    notable. I do however agree that providing statistical data without lead and other information is pretty annoying. However, an article needing improvement has never been grounds for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I am now working on the article. There are plenty of sources available and the nominator could have helped by adding a lead and general background with sources rather than just nominating. Clear case of lack of
WP:BEFORE.Tamsier (talk) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment This is a statistical or
Football records in England, etc.Tamsier (talk) 06:37, 26 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vallelunga

Vallelunga (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 article is 13 years old but is only a single line long, with no references. Perhaps we should turn this into a disambiguation leading to 3 articles, 2 of which are already linked on the page:

Thoughts? – numbermaniac 07:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 07:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this paper, there is a village there of the same name ("Martello, Stelvio and Vallelunga are three small, isolated villages of the Venosta Valley in South Tyrol"), so it is a populated place and notable per
    Venosta Valley which is a possible merge target. This travel guide confirms that Vallelunga is a side valley, and also gives the German name (Langtaufers) – places in this region are commonly dual-named. If two European languages think a place is notable enough to have a name, then it's notable enough in English to have a Wikipedia article as well. The disambiguation page suggestion is a red herring – that has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, a disambiguation page can be created whatever the outcome here. SpinningSpark 00:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment, the Italian WP has a disambiguation page for Vallelunga, see here, so no problems with having one here, but agree with
    WP:NGEO and so should be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment, now expanded with using sources linked above. SpinningSpark 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spinningspark: There's a huge problem, this was originally about the valley near Rome when it was nominated. Now it's about a valley in South Tyrol which are not geographically proximate, and the article lists both places. I'd fix it, but figured here would be a better place to start. SportingFlyer talk 00:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake, I've moved my additions to Vallelunga (South Tyrol) and put the article back how it was. I'm probably still at "keep", this book (in Italian) describes cycling through it, although it describes the region as a plateau (pianoro) rather than a valley. There seems to be some other stuff in Italian as well, but I don't feel confident enough to write anything from Italian sources. SpinningSpark 10:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:14, 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. As there is an overwhelming majority !voting "delete" (even if the one SPA is taken into account), I am not draftifying this at this moment. Randykitty (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulden (digital currency)


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

No evidence of notability, largely uncited, one RS and some crypto blogs. This is cut-down from a much more blatantly promotional version [23], cited to primary sources and crypto blogs. David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Parool is the RS that you are talking about, this then means that you think sportnext.nl is a "crypto blog", which it most clearly is not. It seems you are overly hasty in your rush to purge this article, first you attempted a WP:PROD despite it clearly not being the reasonable way forward and now you don't even do basic fact checking in your claim of no notability. If you think sportsnext is a "cryptoblog" then how hard could you possibly have searched to determine notability? I'd say not at all... (102.182.161.211 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Het Parool "Internet buys wildly at the Gulden of this Amsterdammer" is about the price rise in October 2016. They do not know why it went up "Waar de plotselinge run op zijn Gulden vandaan komt, weet hij niet./He does not know where the sudden run on his Gulden comes from." Sportnext does not appear to be a reliable source. Their twitter account says "SPORTNEXT is de grootste sportmarketingcommunity van Nederland./SPORTNEXT is the largest sports marketing community in the Netherlands." The article "Collaboration FootGolf and digital payment means Gulden; partnership of the future?" has no named author and is most likely a press release or paid promo. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While that may or may not be true (different argument) - it does not change the fact that the original assertion is wrong, he claims that of the four current sources in the article one is a RS and one is a "crypto blog" and this is an inaccurate claim. Changing the argument does not change the inaccuracy of this claim, and the fact remains that anybody who is making such an inaccurate claim is likely either biased or not actually even reading the links in question - or both. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(102.182.161.211 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC))— 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Review of sources
RTV Noord which is a local radio station.
OOG [nl
] more local news.
RTL Z seems like a more significant publication but interviews aren't independent coverage. Same for Business Insider.
I think there is a general misapplication of what 'notability' is going on here, criteria for source inclusion are not the same as criteria for whether an article should exist or not. The former is more to do with "whether it is first hand information or not" while the second is more to do with "is this a subject which has attracted public interest or not", to quote "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" While a source like the above would not meet the criteria for inclusion within an article, an interview like this does show that there was clearly a lot of public and media interest in Gulden at the time, alone it does not make notability but if combined with the dozens of other articles, the independent market survey showing large support for Gulden in the Netherlands and so on it does. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I think this is an accurate translation of the Dutch Linux Magazine article (Google Translate says the Dutch pdf is too large). It's the most detailed but I don't think it's the most reliable. It seems to be a guest article. See the "Write for Us" page in the English version.
Even if this were true (that it is a guest article), magazines do not have to print articles that are submitted and do have editorial oversight, they have not printed a giant disclaimer stating that its a guest view. Further after a bit more searching, it appears they even considered it important enough to include on the cover https://klant.reshift.nl//STORE1//lin_jaar.png
From a magazine perspective you usually put on the cover what you think will sell copies, this suggests that the magazine considers Gulden a notable enough subject that it should be on the cover to sell copies. While not a huge thing on its own it again speaks towards general notability. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Feature in the bank's magazine doesn't let me copy the text. But the cover and pages 16-24 show that Gulden isn't the only cryptocurrency topic covered. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two articles about cryptocurrency one to do with Bitcoin and one to do with Gulden amongst many other pages that are not to do with cryptocurrency. The magazine is not about cryptocurrency but they felt the public would want to read about Gulden, this again shows a pattern of interest/notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.182.163.117 (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Additional source
A few more sources from searching, still dozens to work through, strangely I seem to be the only person here actually looking for sources while the people calling for deletion seem unwilling to perform any search whatsoever (this speaks to a possible bias on their behalf)
Five "crypto blog" articles, not really that noteworthy, but again it all adds up toward notability
Market researchers and crypto blogs still don't pass
WP:RS, even as you keep posting them - David Gerard (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Market researchers ... still don't pass
WP:RS does not in fact say that at all, it appears that for some reason you consider your opinion to be fact and beyond question. Why not let others comment on the link, I'm sure its more the content you find objectionable than the source, you also (delibritely?) ignore all of the other sources only in favour of talking about "crypto blogs" this shows your anti crypto currency bias, you shouldn't be involved in crypto currency articles at all as you clearly are unable to remain objective. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
RTL Z "Cryptocurrencies: not only bitcoin, but also potcoin and gulden" focus is not on gulden but a general video about cryptocurrency. They put up IOTA's logo at 0:15 and PotCoin's at 1:53 but not for Gulden.
AT5 local news. Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further sources
First link was already posted 5 days ago below.
Emerce [nl] probably a reliable source only if it's written by "Redactie Emerce/Editor Emerce" (they have a lot of non-staff writers). Though the Dutch Wikipedia article is lacking citations including that part you quoted. And the third Emerce link was submitted by a Gulden person "Dit artikel is een ingezonden bericht en valt buiten de verantwoordelijkheid van de redactie./This article is a sent message and is not the responsibility of the editors." Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet more sources
Dagblad van het Noorden asks me to register to view the full article and the second link is about the same thing anyway. Quote magazine sources look okay to me. If you think this is truly notable could you please make an article in Dutch, because this isn't something non-Dutch speakers would hear about. Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've located a copy (can't guarantee it is 100% exactly the same) of the article here https://guldenbites.com/nl/2018/06/01/media-dagblad-vh-noorden-gulden-verovert-groningen for those who are unwilling to do the free registration to read the actual article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.182.166.30 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak delete - I considered nominating this myself when I removed some of the cruft from the article this morning. Most of the coverage in sources has the tone of press releases and some of the other coverage is passing in nature. I'm not familiar enough with Dutch sources to be able to make a strong statement in support of deleting, but at least some of the sources do seem like cryptoblogs. We really need to hammer out a guideline for cryptocurrencies and related topics. For now, this does not seem to quite meet
    WP:SIGCOV.- MrX 🖋 21:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: does not meet
    WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I question how hard you have looked for RS coverage. A further few minutes searching has revealed.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/02/07/je-hoeft-blockchain-niet-te-snappen-6572486-a1544900 (fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant - might not cover the technical details as much as would be liked but that is not relevant for notability)
http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-nederlandse-beleggers-cryptovaluta-dit-jaar (Large survey agency conducts significantly sized survey on crypto investments and considers Gulden notable enough to mention it)
http://www.tns-nipo.com/nieuws/persberichten/aantal-crypto-investeerders-met-100-000-afgenomen (Same survey agency conducts follow up survey and this time finds Gulden notable enough to state its percentage - stating that of the estimated 480000 Dutch crypto traders 56% hold some Bitcoin while 21% hold Gulden - agency clearly considers this significant to the point that they continue tracking it over time)
These are just the first few I stumbled on, a quick search has turned up a list of dozens upon dozens of newspaper articles or references that need to be trawled through. (102.182.161.211 (talk) 06:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.161.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Marketing agencies who talk about how to "grow your brand" are not
WP:RSes, and particularly not for crypto coverage - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That you (probably deliberately) confuse/misrepresent an independent market research group; one of the largest in the world, and that is cited in various other wikipedia articles as a "marketing agency" speaks volumes about your bias here. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I see you're working hard on convincing others. In any case, market researchers quite definitely do not pass
WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
NRC Handelsblad "fifth most circulated newspaper in the Netherlands - seems significant" but it's not. "Drie ondernemers leggen uit hoe zij de wereld overtuigen van blockchain/Three entrepreneurs explain how they convince the world of blockchain" from three different organizations and most of it is quotes. Џ 01:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Major newspaper does an article on blockchain, of the thousands of currencies and even more entrepreneurs in the space, they pick only 3. One of those 3 is Gulden and is given a significant amount of space in the article. Why? Clearly because they think people want to hear about Gulden. I don't see how you can possibly claim that is not significant, it speaks to notability which is exactly what article inclusion/deletion is about. (102.182.163.117 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.163.117 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"Of the thousands" will be limited to those in the Nederlands and available to interview. Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly as more than software but as a currency project
WP:NSOFT being applied in other cases therefore this would be inconsistent. (102.182.154.36 (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.154.36 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally considered a failing argument at AFD, so probably doesn't achieve what you want - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
What's wrong with articles about all cryptocurrencies outside of Bitcoin being deleted? I, and I'm sure many other editors, would be very happy if that happened.
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Strong Keep: It is in the public interest to be able to find out unbiased information about cryptocurrencies, and the Gulden wikipedia entry should be part of that Gulden is considerably less controversial than many cryptocurrencies as it is over 5 years old, and was not started as a get rich quick ICO. With regards to notability Gulden has been used by up to 150,000 users and Gulden has attracted controversy, which is notable by itself. The developers have published, developed and implemented innovative blockchain techniques which justifies the term 2nd generation blockchain. The fact that this is not more widely known I would argue is a case to make the wikipedia entry more detailed rather than deleting it or removing much of the content continually on the grounds that it is just marketing. I would argue that technical details of the unique features of Gulden are interesting and are verifiable from the source code and the developers whitepaper. The Developers claim to be making innovation in blockchain technology and the success or failures of the progress should be documented in the entry.
WP:NSOFT Does not apply as Gulden is a Blockchain, not a software product
WP:NORG Does not apply again, as Gulden is a blockchain and associated community based infarstrcure which does include some organisations but is not in itself an organisation 12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)12:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBelshaw55 (talk • contribs) — JBelshaw55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete The best source is the Het Parool article published in October 2016 when the price was going up a lot and they didn't know why (pump and dump?). The other sources are local news, interviews, features in minor publications (Linux Magazine and that bank's magazine), or otherwise not reliable sources. Not good enough. Џ 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These [24] [25] short articles in Emerce could be useful, but still a delete for me. Џ 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update Neutral on deletion now per [26] [27] [28] Quote magazine sources. Џ 16:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not credible user It should be noted that the user Џ posts negatively on most blockchain related entries other than on, where he/she is super positive. Not credible.50.29.194.50 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC) — 50.29.194.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No policy based argument given by this IP. Balkywrest (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:ORGCRIT. The one source I found that actually talks about the company is listed as a scam when I went looking for reviews. Search of Google, Google Books, Google News has nothing significant about the Gulden. Of the sources cited above, the ones I checked look like they mention Gulden, but not talk in depth about the comapny itself. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:ORGCRIT
Does not apply as this article is not about an organisation but a decentralised currency.
Criticism of the multitude of sources already listed is vague, weak, based on speculation and seems more like an out of hand dismissal of the sources by someone who made up their mind in advance as opposed to an actual application of thought toward the sources or reading of them. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.166.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:BLUD. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Additional sources (business insider)
Seems business insider have been quite consistently and frequently covering Gulden over the last few years.
  • Delete: While it's clear there are many unregistered users bombarding blogposts and unreliable sources, there are a few good ones in the batch. This would lean me towards a weak keep, however:
  • It's unclear to me whether or not any of these actually establish notability
  • The article is currently written like an advertisement
I think the best approach would be to delete the article and let it be resubmitted through AfC. If there truly is significant coverage and notability, it will be re-added to the encyclopedia without a hitch. Dr-Bracket (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your talk of blog posts are simply inaccurate, while you may question the quality of some of the sources to suggest they are blog posts shows a lack of proper diligence on your behalf.
Note that the article allegedly reading like an advertisement is not reason for deletion. "When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." - if it reads like this it should be improved and not deleted, submit an edit that makes it read less like an advert. The main reason the article is likely so short is that a single editor has consistently and for a long period of time deleted all efforts at improving the page instead of making use of the appropriate processes to facilitate improvement.
Calling for an article to be deleted so that it can go through AfC is silly, the page is here already, if there is any doubt about its removal then it should not be removed. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)) — 102.182.166.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Draftify, i note that most of the defense of this article here has been made by an ip who has made no other contributions to WP (apart from the article), they have also
    afc. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:ADHOM is not a valid deletion reason. Criticism of sources is vague and makes no attempt to engage in the source discussion, it appears unlikely you have read any of the sources. (102.182.166.30 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))[reply
]
It appears unlikely that you read what i wrote, i did not say delete as you imply. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article some more thought and I agree that a draftify could be appropriate in place of a deletion. The
WP:SPA has dumped many sources, and if some can be verified to establish notability it should get through AfC without a problem - however the current article does not reflect that, and if you could somehow argue it did then you would really have to go look at the dozens of other deleted cryptocurrency articles and contest them the same. Dr-Bracket (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • A note on the majority of delete voters on this page
There is an emerging pattern amongst delete voters - Every single delete voter makes only vague criticism of the sources with no attempt to properly engage with them, it appears extremely likely they have not even properly looked at them. The only delete voter
WP:JUSTAVOTE (102.182.166.30 (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC))[reply
]
WP:DROPTHESTICK, you are not helping your cause. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
COI query posted to IP's talk page - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator - I'd happily support draftifying. The sources are really not convincing people ... but perhaps a non-trash article can be put together - David Gerard (talk) 23:12, 28 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. There appears to be a consensus that she meets

problem solving 17:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Claudia Lössl

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

No real valid sources and/or secondary sources, notability not established Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per own nom. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find 2 sources related to her. Too little to prove notability? Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 21:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See
    WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America1000 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I believe that she meets
    WP:NACTOR, which specifically mentions voice actors, as she #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and, from what I can see of the German search results, also #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." I don't know how you show that, outside sources related to the films or shows there are fans of. One source I found is an article about stars and their German voice dubbers, ' Synchronsprecher: Star und Stimme - Jippie-jaja, Schweinebacke!' in the Süddeutsche Zeitung [29]. I also note that this is a fairly new article, and some information has been removed as being unsourced. The source I found does have some of that information, so I could put it back in the article. There may well be other sources - I don't have access to older German newspapers and magazines, for example. What are the sources you found, Oshawott? RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Via Google News. Both were in German, and the rest was unrelated (maybe? I don’t know because it was in German). Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have checked the English-language titles of all the films listed, and corrected them and the links to Wikipedia articles about those films. As it was translated from the German Wikipedia article, many of the titles were translations of the German titles, and often quite different from the original English title. I note that only 3 of the 69 listed films are not notable (in the sense of having a Wikipedia article about them). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great, but we do need secondary sources for all of them. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously, the only valid sources available were for her in German websites, but I feel that most of the films listed have citations, just not directly. Lafayette Baguette talk 17:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can find citations, do it. If not, we might delete it due to lack of cites. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 03:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets
    WP:NACTOR. There is no doubt that she exists and has had numerous significant roles. The article does need better sourcing, but AfD is not clean-up. Google News throws up more than a page of material that could be used to support material in this article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for relister @
    talk) 17:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
CommentBecause of the consensus have not reached even Bondegezou after second relist has yet to still stand out. Sheldybett (talk) 01:55, 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Commey

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

Not quite passing

WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:30, 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavyata Sharma

Bhavyata Sharma (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)

Fels

WP:GNG. Wan sime mill-of-the-run beuaty cotests. ∯WBGconverse 07:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Delete Created by a suspicious sock per G5. Sheldybett (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:35, 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 keep.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Mordechai Hager

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

Not as bad as the version I deleted as unsourced spam, but relies on a single obituary in a sympathetic publication. If he was genuinely notable I 'd expect multiple mentions in a wider range of RS sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll raise the Hamodia obit with an obit in the NYT which is generally a very strong indication of notability. This book - has some 4 pages on him. I added an interwiki to hewiki and yiwiki which have more sources (amply satisfying GNG). This was a rather major community leader the Viznitz hasidim in the US (Monsey) being fairly large, and his authority over this community being nearly absolute. Article creator is a newbie, and the article needs work, but
    WP:DONTBITE.Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the sources I see in Hebrew he is quite notable. I nominated the first version of the article for Speedy, so in this case I am quite okay with the current article, despite it requires quite a lot of cleanup of language. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. He is a scion of the Vizhnitz Hasidic dynasty and a major rabbi in his own right in the US. I'll try to add some refs. Yoninah (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. All of the above reasons. Please Use the External links as inline References. Thanks. --
    talk) 12:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think most of the above issues are already solved. — Preceding
talk • contribs) 14:46, 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 nomination withdrawn and no !votes for Deletion. sufficient independent reviews to pass NAUTHOR SNG. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Radzilowski

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

Doesn't pass GNG. Rarely cited, this museum guide and professor at the

WP:NPROF.Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recipients of the
WP:AUTHOR. I think the award + numerous book publications push him into being notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The order of merit is a low ranking award in the Polish system (see list in Orders, decorations, and medals of Poland). Just authoring a number of books is not sufficient for AUTHOR (particularly in this age of self published and easily published books) - AUTHOR(3) states - "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." - which seems to be a stretch in relation to these books. Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of his books are published by quite reliable scholarly publishers like Minnesota Historical Society or Routledge. He is a co-author of an encyclopedia (American Immigration: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change: An Encyclopedia of Political, Social, and Cultural Change, 11 cites). His research and activities are significant enough for Collection: John Radzilowski papers to be made available at the UofM. I disagree he is a minor historian, he seems to be referenced quite often in discussion of Polish-American history. He is important enough to be invited to be reported on by the Polish Embassy in the USA ([32]) and give lectures in the National Museum of Poland ([33]). To me this is more than being a no-name, nobody scholar who has nothing but an unimpressive CV to show. PS. Also, let's consider that our notability guidelines are generally too permissive or sport biographies, and too restrictive for academic. Kick a ball and you are notable, publish several books, get a government award and it is unclear? Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Papers regarding to his lobbying efforts for minor Polish-American institutions. Speaking to high school and university students in Poland (your pl.usembassy link) or giving a lecture (on the same visit in Poland marking the 100 years of Polish-American relations - on a temporary exhibit on US/Polish relations marking 100 years) at the Cinema MUZ in the Warsaw museum are not an indication of notability.... A Tetyana Filevska (CV here - born 1983, PhD, last entry - a guide) - gave a lecture in the same hall. Academics give lectures all the time. Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not invited lectures. Those are given only by high profile academics. Oh, also the various links mention do indicate coverage that may suffice him to pass regular BIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://polishamericanstudies.org/text/29/haiman-award.html
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is not to delete -> default keep. Merge can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 14:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Root analogue dental implant

AfDs for this article:
Root analogue dental implant (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)

There is no need for a separate article for each type of implant. Tony85poon (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)


Idea–expression divide. Despite conventional implant and RAI being different expressions, the idea is the same: to give him/her a tooth that looks good. He/she does NOT want embarrassing dentures (the joke is that elderly people often leave their false teeth behind at hotel while checking out). Tony85poon (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but articles like
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I made a plain-text version at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tony85poon/sandbox&oldid=880096527 with 7813 words. If I "remove unreferenced and marketroid stuff", it can even be shorter. My point is that the merged article is still within reasonable length. Tony85poon (talk) 09:43, 25 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. Tone 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Boffone

Trevor Boffone (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)

Relatively junior producer. Hs start two non-notable projects, and helped edit one selection of plays. The article claims scholarly work, but i do not see any. The articles are either PR, or just mentions. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:55, 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 keep. Tone 14:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Padrón

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

Promotional article for minor theater entrepreneur. Founder of two minor companies, and has worked in some others. No evidence of any actually notable productions. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:53, 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. Tone 14:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belayat Hossain Mamun

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

The sources provided seem to be passing mentions, and no significant mentions showed up with

WP:FILMMAKER) ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 03:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While there are several articles with trivial mentions of him, virtually no

WP:SIGCOV of Mamun is findable. Seems to fail GNG. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:39, 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Reynolds (football)

Johnny Reynolds (football) (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:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by the creator without providing a reason. — Michael (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Michael (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:48, 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 redirect to FanSided. RL0919 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Best (businessman)

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

A blogger and tweeter with no claim of importance or significance. The independent references are mostly about his blog/company FanSided being acquired and not about him; one is a quote from him about posting tweets in response to Donald Trump.

π, ν) 22:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about Redirection Trillfendi (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an obvious PR piece. This is a non-notable subject who doesn't pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Nothing to show he's notable individually but a redirect seems reasonable--although the notability of FanSided might be debatable.Sandals1 (talk) 15:46, 26 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. Tone 14:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akan Okon

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

Promotional article from a now blocked sock. Subject does not appear to be notable enough, and cannot find any in-depth independent coverage. Edwardx (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. I don't have many strong feelings on this AfD, but for other voters: nearly all the news hits I can find on Okon are solely because he is often the spokesperson being quoted in the article. As such, the articles are not 'about' him and should probably not count for much wrt notability. The other two sources[1][2] that came up with a quick search don't seem to be from particularly reliable sources, though that may just be my lack of familiarity with Nigerian news sources. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://calabarreporters.com/28560/akan-okon-bags-award
  2. ^ https://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/272060/harnessing-the-potentials-of-aviation-in-akwa-ibom-the-ta.html
  • Delete. "Commissioner for Housing and Special Duties" could get him over
    primary source profile on the government's own website, two glancing namechecks of his existence in routine lists of everybody who got government appointments at the same time as him, and one short blurb about him announcing a government policy. These are not sources about him for the purposes of making him notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 29 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Albäck

Peter Albäck (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)

Chairman of a Swedish-language council and a municipal councillor - that would appear to be insufficient to pass

WP:NPOLITICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:11, 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 redirect to ANSA McAL. Not a perfect redirect, but will suffice unless a better target is found. Tone 14:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tatil Building

The Tatil Building (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)

Can find nothing in the article or online as to why this building is notable, and no in-depth coverage. Seems to fail

WP:GEOFEAT. Edwardx (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:10, 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 redirect to

Tanza, Cavite#Education. Tone 14:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Felipe G. Calderon Elementary School

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

An elementary school in the Philippines; no claims of notability and doesn't appear to meet

WP:NSCHOOL. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I must direct all credit to "Random article"... - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte elementary schools are almost never notable, no reason to see an exception here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_January_22&oldid=1142614111"