Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 January	4 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Scott Lewis

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

Page appears to have been created by its subject, and contains no references solely about its subject. FeldBum (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the threshold of multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously fails the
WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:26, 6 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.

π, ν) 04:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

2019 in basketball

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

Currently just a bunch of unfilled section headers, and fails

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Previously nominated for PROD by Robert McClenon (rationale: "This does not have enough substantive content to be an article, and consists of placeholder headings. This is not a useful encyclopedia page.") and then declined by Rikster2 (rationale: "These articles collect information on the sport throughout the year. We just had our first item - a notable death. The page has to be present for items to be added"). Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Draftspace it Although it's 2019 now, which was the reason for it being accepted at AfC, it has no significant content. The only content is one person listed as dead. In a few months, there will likely be significant information for the article, but it's
too soon for now. No point in deleting and recreating, draftspace is better in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Don't Draft space it the new year has started you better keep it. 68.103.78.155 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These articles exist all over - 2019 in baseball, 2019 in paleontology, etc. we just had the first event of 2019 - a notable death, added to the article and sourced - and we are 3 days into the year. If the issue is you want tables that show dates for scheduled events, we can add them but that’s improving an article not deleting it. This is probably the 7th-8th year these articles have existed from January 1 (or therabout) and this is the first time I can remember one being nominated for deletion once the year starts. Look at 2018 in basketball and you can see how it gets filled out through the course of the year. Rikster2 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not
WP:TOOSOON at this point, but this is a proper current "event". SportingFlyer talk 23:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Rikster2 and SportingFlyer. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rikster2 and SportingFlyer's arguments. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify - We should remember that Wikipedia is written for the reader, not read for the writer. An article that consists of nothing but placeholder headings is not useful for the reader. Just because
Other Stuff Has Previously Existed doesn't mean that it should have existed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- Readers do use the page. I would point you to
  WP:ATD - “If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.” Again, would information on dates and sites of upcoming tournaments, etc. make it more useful to the reader? If so, page improvement should be pursued vs. deleting, so what are the suggestions? There is a whole class of “year in” articles, so are you suggesting none should exist on January 3rd? That’s not “other stuff exists,” it’s a serious question about a class of articles we know are used through the year, including this series. Rikster2 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Little doubt there will be more events and this page can be populated. Waste of cycles deleting or moving just to recreate or move back.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy Keep Complete waste of time, topic is clearly notable. This AfD is disruptive. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per per Rikster2 and SportingFlyer's arguments. Also, aren't there several ongoing 2018–19 seasons that can now be added there? Dammit_steve (talk) 16:30, 5 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 17:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wolf (businessman)

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

a jack-of-all-trades businessman I see no description of real achievemnts, the article is ref-bombed with standard PR stuff. A wikipedea expert wrote it I smell. - Altenmann >talk 05:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

missfortune 06:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

miss fortune 06:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 06:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment, i've foun these that may contribute to Wolf's notability: there is a piece about him in The New Yorker, and another in The Wall Street Journal, his book The Entertainment Economy reviewed by Journal of Marketing - (review here), The Economist - (subscrition required), also, an article "All Around the World Same Song" in the Journal of Media Sociology notes that "The concept "entertainment economy" comes from Michael Wolf's (2003) book, The Entertainment Economy..."here (p.20). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a clear PR piece, probably by a paid editor. Ref-bombed. The subject is not notable. Skirts89 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to push out PR puff pieces, although that is how it is sadly sometimes used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and cut it down to a stub. Article has been tagged ADVERT for years, but the thing is, the sources User:Coolabahapple found are seriously SIGCOV, and I don't see how we delete him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC) coming around to the view that blatant PROMO for a marginally notable figure maybe should just be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the sources that were posted by Coolabahapple.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Article has too much promotional content to be saved.TH1980 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject doesn't seem to meet
WP:BIO. MarkH21 (talk) 07:56, 10 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) 10:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Jodi Byrd

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

Not Notable. References are minor or simply names on a list. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She only has the one book it seems, but it has a lot of published reviews (I just added 12 to the references of the article). I think it's enough for
WP:BEFORE, instead giving a generic and superficial review of the references (before I augmented them) that is not appropriate for these kinds of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'm satisfied that
WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I'm not convinced that
WP:NAUTHOR is. Google Scholar shows 676 citations for The Transit of Empire and there's plenty of reviews in academic journals. Papaursa (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

keep Notable and meets
Talk 04:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

keep Meets
talk) 11:17, 9 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 17:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Media

)

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

Unnotable, fails GNG/NCORP.

✉) 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes I agree, article should be deleted. It looks like Encore bought this company at some point then closed it because Viva Media's website doesn't work and it no longer appears on Encore's website, and I'm unable to find any sources or articles on Viva Media which appears not to be in business anymore. 2001:5B0:4BD3:43F8:389A:A679:99DF:BFF7 (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a stub that lacks sources.TH1980 (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article not having long content that isn't sourced is not a deletion policy. The argument is regarding this being a notable subject. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - that being said, my
WP:BEFORE search didn't fill me with joy. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 6 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 17:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Komarkova

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

Notability tag has been there over 8 years and I can see why. She doesn’t meet GNG. I’m unable to find any sources for her career. All that is cited here are modeling agencies and blogs which don’t help. Trillfendi (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searched both English and Russian, the best I could find are inclusions in some "lists of 10", no indepth coverage of her as such. --GRuban (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, fails
WP:BIO for entertainers / models. MarkH21 (talk) 07:55, 10 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 17:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shirin Mazaheri

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

Article has sources, but does not meet significant, independent requirements. Subject does not meet notability requirements. This reads like

artspam to me. Not averse to someone honoring the CSD's already on page. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete promotional bio,,with dubious notability , but I removed the speedy tag. It's better to decide it here,b ecause it lets us use speedy if it's recreated/ DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources are from companies she is an employee of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this résumé. Trillfendi (talk) 05:28, 8 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 17:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amisha Basnet

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

Fails

Talk 19:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Talk 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Talk 19:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no coverage in
WP:RS at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Trillfendi (talk) 05:26, 8 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 17:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Binita Baral

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

Sources are not reliable expect one abc news nepal and it's

Talk 18:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Talk 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Talk 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.
Talk: Contribs) 23:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 05:26, 8 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. Given Azkord's new source, this is a soft keep, with no prejudice towards an early renomination; but such an early renomination should be probably post 3-6 months with a common sense appreciation of source strength Lourdes 04:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Oad

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

WP:BLP1E violation. Sole claim-to-fame is winning a music-reality-show, the likes of which are spawning like anything, over the recent past. ∯WBG^converse 12:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep The previous AfD only ended 3 days ago, with 5 keep votes and no delete votes except the Nom's (which was withdrawn). What justification is there for another one, and especially so soon? Winning a notable music competition means that he meets
WP:BLP1E. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
RebeccaGreen, read my reply, below. ∯WBG^converse 13:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just like Rebecca has said, opening the nomination this fast while the former one just days ago had a VERY rare on AfD clear Keep consensus (I will say 2 Keep arguments were very weak, and even if we exclude the author argument which will obviously be biased as he created it he did use a rational argument, and there was still enough consensus to make). Ravi may not meet
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Jovanmilic97
, I don't care for what a troll was nominating days back. He is globally-locked now, FWIW.

And, BLP1E is a policy whilst NMUSIC ain't. ∯WBG^converse 13:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep
talk) 13:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Azkord, making music videos and going for tours does not have any significance towards improving notability-quotient. ∯WBG^converse 14:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 14:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Azkord, I added DELSORT-INDIA because the number of experienced editors from India far exceeds Nepal. ∯WBG^converse 14:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Go, write some quality-articles. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get out of the topic and don't be personal. I did my best and this is not related to these afd topic.

talk) 14:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Winged Blades of Godric have you seen this article Pranav Dhanawade? --Binod Basnet (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WBG first name some quality articles created by you. --Binod Basnet (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He is the winner ofer Nepal Idol. I think the Nom quite biased. --Binod Basnet (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to Nepal Idol as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He'd won the show on 21 Dec however sources are slowly coming out: BBC, NewsofNepal and baahrakhari - I only found these by searching "रवि ओडलाई" however not being Nepalese I don't actually know if that's his name or not, It's worth noting not all newspapers etc are quick to get things out it all varies by country. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 15:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Davey2010, that's not the point. I fail to see why NMUSIC shall carve an exception for BLP1E esp. when the former is the least followed (and probably, the most inclusive) of all SNGs. ∯WBG^converse 16:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I never said he does meet NMUSIC - IMHO the closest he comes to NUMSIC is #9 (Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.) but for me that's not enough for keeping, I personally would say he meets BASIC by a very bare minimum, It's tough as you're indeed correct he's at present only known for one thing but on the other as I said IMHO he looks to meet BASIC,

I wouldn't lose any sleep if this was deleted put it that way, Cheers, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He has garnerd some publicity, but I am not sure it is enough to keep, but maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to
WP:BLP1E, even if one accepts that the competition involved is "major", which I have doubts about. If and when the subject does have a true, actual international tour (not just a one-off gig), the article can be easily recreated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete and redirect to WP:BLP1E.FitIndia ^Talk 16:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I am close to change my opinion on this analyzing things around the subject and in article. But what...what is the point of
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I have consistently said that NMUSIC is one of our poorest guidelines and has hardly any relevance with the current community interpretation of policies.

Written in the early-2000s, it was essentially an individual endeavor for a wiki-project consisting of pet-likings and this reinforces that. About 4 months after that, somebody tried to mention at the top that it was not any policy. He was reverted for technical-reasons and somebody then branded it as a guideline; without any rigorous community-discussion.

Silence is often equated to consensus and it has stayed at the top, ever since.....

Over the archives, the author of this guideline made an interesting comment during those spans:--.....these are all only guidelines and will not preclude any article being nominated for deletion, nor, once nominated, deleted. Meaning all these guidelines should evolve over time -- rather than argue over specifics, maybe we should argue over actual articles.

As @TonyBallioni: may allude to, changing criterion of notability guidelines is one of the most difficult stuffs to do, over here; unless and until you can cite multiple AfDs/discussions which proves beyond doubt that the community has already firmly rejected that particular criterion of the guideline.

Taking cue from both the above points, I will say that the first step to alter/remove such erroneous criterion is to !vote in contrary and set a precedent, over multiple AfDs. Over this sphere, policies reflect practice, largely. ∯WBG^converse 19:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to
WP:BLP1E. Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Nepal Idol per above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk)

Redirect to
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has done his first international tour at Japan [4] and meets
Talk 19:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment If "Over this sphere, policies reflect practice", as
WP:NMUSIC. As for "pet-likings", there has been a succession of pet-dislikings with the earthquake and supercentenarian AfD campaigns - I do not look forward to a similar one about music-related articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
RebeccaGreen, umm..... you can do better than taking a line out-of-context and creatively interpreting it. I don't have any ideas about how earthquake and supercentenarian AfD campaigns are 'any relevant over here. ∯WBG^converse 06:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NMUSIC. Competing in, and winning, a major TV talent competition that was televised over 5 months is not 'one event'. --Michig (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep (and possible strong procedural keep per rapid re-AfD). Primarily I think Azkord's comment and Michig's argument have worth and are sufficient (via different routes) to demonstrating BLP1E doesn't apply. Nosebagbear (talk)

Notability rule comment - Then there's this attempt to start amending notability rules on the grounds that it notability changes require a de facto prior shift in AfDs. This, unfortunately, has some validity to it - the school notability argument keeps getting re-litigated because the AfD consensus clashes with the general editor population. However an out and out argument that this is the way to do it sounds a concerning drop. At a minimum it would be worth raising it at least at
WP:VPI first. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 9 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 17:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stoppelsberg (Sinn valley)

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 itself (other than one infobox without citations) is literally one sentence to start, with no citations. Because of this, the only info one could interpret would be in the infobox with limited information. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 18:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind the nomination. There are possible sources in German such as [5] and a decent article in German, so I think it's possible to uncover some sources and no one has yet. SportingFlyer talk 03:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
WP:NGEO, the German WP has a referenced article on here, a gsearch brings up a number of sources gbooks here and gnews here, (some do appear snips), hopefully an obliging editor who knows german can expand the article? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NGEO and all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:53, 10 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. Lourdes 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Vancouver Knights

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

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

Appears to fail
WP:BEFORE shows only passing mentions in independent coverage from when they played team that had coverage. The best appears to be this one, but its independence is questionable as it is a school paper covering former players joining a local pro/semipro team. In fact, as part of the before, I would argue the cricket team of the same name received far more coverage. Yosemiter (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The only significant indy coverage I can find, after filtering hits for the similiarly named cricket team, are from unreliable sports blogs and the nominator's aforementioned school newspaper.—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the editor keeping updated articles on teams in
π, ν) 04:31, 7 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. Lourdes 04:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ohio Bootleggers

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

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

Appears to fail
verifiability. Yosemiter (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Routine game coverage like this from The Post Journal would not count.—Bagumba (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment the editor keeping updated articles on teams in
π, ν) 04:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:V which is what led me to nominate it. Yosemiter (talk) 13:58, 7 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: nomination withdrawn due to
WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 15:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The Rise of Victimhood Culture

The Rise of Victimhood Culture (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 book shows no signs of being notable. Of the 6 references in the article, none actually reference the book itself, they are only related to its contents. As such this book does not meet any of the
WP:NB criteria. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 17:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note that EVERY article nominated for deletion by User:Newbiepedianhas been KEPT.Here: [6]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaargh. Delete.
WP:GNG
, but they're not about this specific book about victim culture.

Keep: changed to keep per
WP:HEY done by E.M.Gregory. SITH (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep (article creator). Nom and SITH ought to read the page. The first subhead is about a 2015 academic article that made a splash. The authors turned the argument in their widely cited article into a book. Article and book make the same argument, and are inextricably linked, which is why I made a joint page. Article and book have certainly gotten
WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There's no perfect way to handle a book article where the book comes from a clearly notable source (article, dissertation, etc) but has not itself received many reviews yet. The specific topic/argument from these authors clearly passes
talk) 20:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - Meets
WP:RS sourcing. People may quibble on the very notable article vs. the recently published book with the exact same topic with the same thesis by the same two authors: that conversation belongs on the TP. AfD is not cleanup and can never be. XavierItzm (talk) 23:40, 3 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) 16:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Scooby-Doo characters

List of minor Scooby-Doo characters (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 listcruft/fancruft, we already have List of Scooby-Doo characters, also see this ANI thread. SemiHypercube 16:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 16:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'm leaning towards agreeing with nom and Katniss on this one. Unnecessary fork, debate can happen at the original article over what minor characters should go on the list.^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a temp link to the ANI thread until it's archived.
Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Clear_case_of_WP:NOTHERE^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fully agree with everything said so far. Having seen the series as well, 95% of those characters in the article are one-offs and very
trivial. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This is not what it purports to be. It is not a list of minor characters; It is a fork of the existing character list article including all the main characters. Essentially, this is the article that its authors would like the existing character list article to be if it weren't for ~~those meddling kids~~ editors insisting on following the rules properly. Insofar as this is a duplicate it is unnecessary. Insofar as it is not a duplicate, it is full of admittedly minor characters and it is non-notable. In fact, were it to be kept I'd suggest a rename to List of non-notable Scooby-Doo characters that they wouldn't let us put in the other article, the spoilsports!. The "referencing" is just awful, both in its failure to link many of the "references" to the material they purport to reference and in the references themselves. Some are primary (i.e. the episodes themselves). Many are non-RS. Some are Wikipedia itself! There is very deep ineptitude here and, if what I read on ANI is true, worse. So this needs to be deleted. Also the authors need to be investigated for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/tag-team editing and, if the situation is as bad as reported (which I have not checked for myself), they need to have their rubber masks pulled off and be carted off at the end of the show. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom et alia, of course:
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE collection of every detail known on a subject. ——SerialNumber54129 22:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above, especially for DanielRigal managing to work in a "meddling kids" reference. Note: Check out the entry for "Abraham Lincoln" while you still have the chance. --Calton | Talk 10:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, I've also noticed that the creator of this page has also created
WP:A7 but it didn't go through and I've also voted at the deletion discussion. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Usually when "minor characters" is in the name of an article, it's probably fancruft, unless it has a very good reason for existing and this one doesn't. This belongs on Wikia rather than Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor characters is a clear giveaway as to the notability of this topic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 7 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. For unreferenced BLPs,
(non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Scott Gurvey

Scott Gurvey (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)

Unreferenced BLP. Articles about living people have to have references. Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has one
WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not suggesting he isnt notable. Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 4 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. I'm disregarding Azkord and Binod's comments; leaving that, delete she goes Lourdes 04:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garud Puran (2019 film)

Garud Puran (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails
WP:NFILM and the last paragraph of W:NFF
. And, also fails GNG (significant coverage) by a mile or so, with typical spam-coverage.
An example is this source which mentions a single line about the release of trailer; regurgitates the details (cast, release date et al) of the film and the amount of pictures far exceeds the volume of written stuff.
The rest of references amount to trivial routine PR-coverage in entertainment-sections of sources and gossip-sites. The generalized stuff (the above ref or this) is like ....the first look/ the trailer/the first song of the film is out.....This film features XYZ and directed by ABC....Story is written by JKL and choreographed by MNO....
KathmanduPost has devoted a single paragraph about the first looks of the film on 20th November. It's quite early to be on Wikipedia.......
∯WBG^converse 14:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was thinking that this user will add more afd on the pages i created. This is just an personal attack like he did on
talk) 14:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep WBG is doing personal attack. --Binod Basnet (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having trouble confirming that the film will be released, there =also seems to be a tad of over linking which makes me dubious about any real notability.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The Kathmandu Times appears to be an RS and has two article related to this film. It has started shooting. There appears to be a strong likelihood of
WP:NEXIST we should keep. Article is very poor quality but AFD is not clean-up. I see no evidence whatsoever that this is a personal attack, that accusation should be withdrawn. FOARP (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: this is the Kathmandu Times, the only reliable and independent source the article references. It's a "first look" article. One source isn't enough to establish
And that's what Wikipedia's not. I agree with FOARP: Azkord you need to realise that WBG is putting forward reasonable arguments and you don't counter those with false accusations. SITH (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

How can you say that Kathmandu Post is only reliable? Ujyaloonlline, Nagarik News, setopati, ratopati & rajhdani news are large and independent reliable sources of Nepal.
talk) 01:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Azkord, sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I must admit, I've only been to Nepal once and the Kathmandu Times was the only publication cited here that I encountered, but obviously I realise that reliable sources which I don't know about exist. However, the URLs of the other ones you mention seem to bear the hallmarks of redtop / tabloid publications in their use of language (I'm using Google Translate, so it might not be 100% accurate but there are definitely tonal differences between KT and NN, for example). My !vote is a weak delete, so if you could convince me that one of the other cited sources is considered reliable, I'd be willing to change my mind. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you were only reviewing english sources here are some of the new english articles [7][8] and about those Nepali links which i mentioned before are totally independent according to
Talk 05:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - in-creation notability isn't sufficiently established. @FOARP: - we can't just assume there is going to be reliable sourcing available. No prejudice against re-creation. Azkord and Binod you are falsely accusing an editor - please remove your accusations, in the case of Binod, yours isn't a !vote at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trailer has been already released and all the sources provided on the article by me are independent and reliable. so it's notable to be kept. Talk 12:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Trailer and film release are very different things Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing anything convincing for keeping as my searches found nothing better. Fails
WP:NFF. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

could you please check Nepali sources whicha are provided? and here is the new post by Kathmandu post [9] Talk 14:49, 5 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
(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Where the Sidewalk Ends (poem)

Where the Sidewalk Ends (poem) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats
)

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

Prod Declined. Cannot find
notability. Plenty of mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Note: This is for the poem, not the book. --Darth Mike^(talk) 20:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Where the Sidewalk Ends. I was thinking of a merge but there's not much to salvage that does not appear like original research. The article appears just one person's analysis of the poem. Ifnord (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This would be better off on a Cliffs Notes website or something. Don't see the need for a redirect since it's not a believable search target._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Where the Sidewalk Ends. Agree with Ifnord above: there's little or nothing in this article worth merging. --Lockley (talk) 06:46, 9 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. postdlf (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Craze

Sarah Craze (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 actress. She does not meet criteria per WP:NACTOR. While she had a key role in Little Women (1970 series), she does not have any other significant roles in other notable productions. Article was de-PRODded but additional sources have not been added to the page. Citrivescence (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~for the
WP:AFC process as the subject does have a number of prominent roles as shown at imdb but the article needs major improvement, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep changed to keep now that the article has been improved including the addition of reliable sources references, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per her IMDB page which confirms she meets NACTOR. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work - for a start, she was not just a television actress, she also appeared on stage. And while she may not have had a significant role in Daniel Deronda, she certainly did in Little Women and in Hine. I will add info and reviews about her stage work, and more about her TV roles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I have added more information and references to the article, using only what is available online. As she appears to have been mainly active during the 1970s and 80s, I think it's likely that there are other sources which are not online. Maybe other editors will have access to some. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the stage performances and some of the
WP:ENT criterion 1. SITH (talk) 16:18, 3 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) 16:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Saleh

Sam Saleh (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)

Lacks the coverage to establish notability and meets no clearly set out guidelines. A Google News search yields 11 hits for "Sam Saleh" +dentist, none of which give any information that sets him above any of a million or so other dentists. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a notable figure; or at least, any more notable than any other dentist. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the sole contributing editor to this article is actually the subject of the article.
talk) 16:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete doing cosmetic dentistry in high price markets is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as John Pack Lambert who is also a dentist does not like the page but would like a page about him(talk) 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as created or updated by multiple sockpuppets/single-purpose accounts; article neutrality thus compromised. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to meet notability guidelines. 94.4.235.100 16:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.235.100 (talk) [reply]

Speedy Delete Not Notable everyone agrees. 185.59.127.21 (Talk) 13:52, 7 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 a consensus that discussion of the topic is warranted somewhere on Wikipedia. There isn't a clear consensus on whether or not Space fountain should be merged into Non-rocket spacelaunch. That question can be discussed further on the article's talk page to establish consensus. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Space fountain

Space fountain (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-article about a non-notable imagined or fantastic bit of science fiction from Robert L. Forward, no independent sourcing. After deletion, no objection to creation of a redirect to that page or any other suitable target if one can be found. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely agree with JLAN's assessment. Not enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some more information and references, there is potential to improve it more. That it hasn't been built (so far?) is not a deletion reason. --mfb (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even with the additional references, RS coverage appears to be minimal and does not establish notability for a standalone article. The existing section at Non-rocket spacelaunch is sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 03:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Non-rocket spacelaunch#Space_fountain. There are enough sources showing coverage [10][11][12][13] (and the primary but edited [14]) to support retention of something. Minsky speaks of the origination here. Also used in fiction by at least Pohl [15], and presumably Forward. It looks like a solid two paragraphs would be able to encapsulate coverage visible online, and that there isn't enough (without dragging in primary material) for a significantly lengthier article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A much lengthier article was recently deleted for COPYVIO, which is fair enough. However, it shows that the current contents are by no means the limit, and the existing references confer notability. GliderMaven (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio appears to have been of this (non-copyvio link), which is a primary source but an edited one. Was there any sigcov not from that, which was deleted and/or can anyone identify any other RS secondary coverage that would reasonably allow for a significantly lengthier article? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Non-rocket spacelaunch#Space_fountainInteresting (deserves coverage) but not notable enough for own article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep. Items like this are exactly why we have categories like Category:Hypothetical technology in the first place. also, this is not some random trivial hypothetical gadget like a salad-maker; this is a genuine scientific hypothetical idea of some importance for the Space Age. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three way-disagreement for Keep, Delete, Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because chemical rocket propulsion has been used since World War 2 and nobody ever thought of a better way. Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason to keep. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Plenty of coverage in books like It's ONLY Rocket Science and Space, the Final Frontier?. Andrew D. (talk) 15:48, 3 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. Considering the "barely" in BabbaQ's keep statement, I've leaned towards delete. However, as is usual, someone terribly disturbed because of this close may contact me on my talk page for soothing comments. Lourdes 04:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Karlsson (songwriter)

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

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

Article states Karlsson helped produce and write
WP:BIO. Redirecting to the Runaway (U & I) article might be an alternative if the consensus is to delete. FWIW, I asked about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Julia Karlsson (songwriter) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden#Julia Karlsson (songwriter), but was unable to find any better sourcing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 05:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - For now. From what I can see the sources indicates what the article states. Which makes her pass WP:GNG threshold. If only barely. BabbaQ (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I definitely do not think she passes GNG. I saw less than 5 possibly-reliable sources (that aren't just passing mentions) when I did a google search, none of which were from large-scale publications. She may pass MUSICBIO but more sources would be needed for me to change my vote on that. I would support a redirect to the Runaway U&I song article as writing it is really the only thing she's ever done that's remotely notable. ––
^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete She is a too soon. Though as an aside, writing or producing a notable song can contribute to notability if there are the proper sources to back it up.Trillfendi (talk) 05:18, 8 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 17:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kollision

Kollision (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)

Artist and related mixtapes do not meet
WP:MUS. Being signed to a label such as Quality Control Music
isn't enough to make one eligible for an article. I am also nominating the following Kollision-related pages:

Not for Nothing (Kollision album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Better Than Yesterday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Like You Dance (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Tend to the Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Aint Have (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Road (Kollision song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Who You Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Redirect)

Category:Songs writed by Kollision (rapper) (edit | [[Talk:Category:Songs writed by Kollision (rapper)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Category:Kollision (rapper) (edit | [[Talk:Category:Kollision (rapper)|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Kollision template has already been nominated for deletion. Nice4What (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
MVTTXW$: Letting you know I've put these Kollision-related articles up for deletion since you've created all of them. Nice4What (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a too soon. Trillfendi (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all related nominated pages. Only significant third party recognition so far is being one of multiple artists in a larger article in Billboard that is about his record label, but not about this subject. Others are user submitted press release-type stuff in online sources like HotNewHipHop. As noted above,
WP:TOOSOON at best. All related articles are promotional by same SPA editor. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:56, 8 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. Lourdes 04:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Becky Kelly

Becky Kelly (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'm not able to verify enough independent sources to establish notability. I also could not find basic information such as her DOB, or sources to verify education. Article was created and extensively edited by a SPA. The awards all appear to be run of the mill industry awards; in other words, just an illustrator doing her job. GNG fail.
talk) 07:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 07:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
miss fortune 09:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
miss fortune 09:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I'm trying hard to find some of these references, having trouble. The Moonbeam awards might be a big enough deal, since she won the first ever 'best illustrator'? The Dragon Pencil awards don't seem to be a thing any more, the domain is dead. It does appear from the subject's website that there's been repeated and some extensive coverage in Mary Engelbreit Magazine, but I can't seem to figure out which issues, etc. valereee (talk) 13:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonbeam awards page says they gave out 81 gold, silver or bronze awards in 2007, in 27 categories. She won the first prize (gold) in the "Best Illustrator" category. It's something, but I don't think it's enough.
talk) 14:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

There's also a Russian-language article that looks like it was a feature on her at her website. Again, can't get to it and because it's a pdf of the article, can't translate it or google it.valereee (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find this source of information about children's literature and book awards, updated 2007 [16], which says " The DragonPencil Awards honor the very best in independently published children's books. The sponsors describe it as "the most prestigious award for self-published children's publishers in the industry." Winners receive a plaque and 2000 embossed, foil-printed seals to apply to their books. Categories include: Book of the Year, Illustration (gold, silver medals), Literature (gold, silver medals)." I also found a couple of short reviews of her books: My Mother Gave Me the Moon - "heartfelt ... full of tender words ... simple text and vivid colors" [17]; And Then In A Twinkling "charming little book of watercolor artwork and inspirational sayings. It promises to bring out the holiday cheer in anyone." [18] I don't think it matters not knowing a DOB, but we do need independent sources for the information that is included in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Trillfendi (talk) 05:14, 8 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) 16:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev_Mansotra

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Mansotra

Sanjeev_Mansotra (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 page isn't appropriate to be displayed & has personal information which the personal intellectual rights may not want to display Nasha316 (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete. Promotional article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Not G11able but fails NBIO. ∯WBG^converse 06:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
WP:GNG. Shashank5988 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 23:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The person is notable but mostly through his company (founder and chairman)
Core Education & Technologies Ltd. I recommend redirecting the page to his company's article page. Most of the non-personal information pertaining to him are available on the company's own page, making this one redundant. A few references on biography do not link correctly to the article or the information cited is not actually there. Trunks Ishida ^talk / _contribs 16:17, 6 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 17:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O'Darien Bassett

O'Darien Bassett (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)

Contested PROD. Fails both
missfortune 09:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
miss fortune 09:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
miss fortune 09:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
miss fortune 09:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NBASKETBALL either.—Bagumba (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No significant independent coverage to meet
WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Have coverage in Chinese language in HK media: [19]. Especially reporting as man of the match [20]. Here is the interview [21]. Matthew hk (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing these. The first two are trivial mentions. The last one from hk.on.cc (I will presume it is
WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete I'll admit I used Google translate, but none of the coverage looks significant to me. I see some routine sports reporting and an interview with a local source, which may or not be reliable. I'll bet every ASEAN league player has done an interview with the media where his team is based and you can't claim all ASEAN league players are notable. Fails both
WP:NBASKETBALL. Sandals1 (talk) 19:07, 8 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. Lourdes 04:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altaro

Altaro (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)

Does not appear to meet
WP:NORG–it is however, included as an example of trivial coverage. I wasn't able to find anything better online. I do want to note that there is one source included that contains non-trivial coverage whose reliability I am uncertain of [22]. However, even if we do take it as an example of reliable, independent, significant coverage, it is the only such source that I have seen and thus still falls short of notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Unsure about this. I wonder if it just needs a couple of extra sources. So far I've been able to find this one, which is a press release but on the Maltese government website and seemingly independent of the country itself, as well as this one and this one and this one which are from national papers, although again I'm unsure of the reliability. They have articles across Google News in English, Dutch and German at least, from what I've been able to see. I think this is just a case of needing a re-write with better citations, which I'm willing to take on. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those additional sources add much. The first article provides the barest of information about Altaro's operations, the second one just says is that the subject won award, and includes quotes from the CEO for the rest of its content. 3 is a collection of paraphrasals and quotes from the CEO that doesn't contain independent analysis, and 4 is an interview with the cofounders that again contains no independent analysis. This doesn't seem to meet
WP:ORGCRITE any more than what's attached to the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I can see what you mean. However, two is not really enough for a consensus on this. In the meantime, I'm going to try and improve the article and find some better resources, to see if it can meet
WP:ORGCRITE standards. Hope that's okay. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

After deliberation, keep. Company has been featured in all three of the most prominent Maltese English-language newspapers: The Malta Independent, Malta Today and Times of Malta (see this list for the rest). Even though it may not be an internationally renowned company, I'd say coverage in the three national papers (and not insignificant coverage at that) is enough to warrant its importance to Malta. Its success outside of Malta is a bonus, IMO. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMarkBGregory: I guess you forgot to disclose paid editing here. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Funnily enough, I haven't been paid for this one. I always disclose paid edits, as you can see from my userpage. Besides, that's irrelevant to this discussion. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is some evidence that the company was looking for users to add keep !votes at this AfD and then your activities here at the same time are quite surprising. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, there's nothing undisclosed about this. Yes, I have started taking on some paid edits because I'm trying to make it a little easier for my family and I to get by, but this is not one of them. As I've said before, and as you've already seen, I disclose my paid edits, even before I actually get paid. I'm also trying to become more involved in Wikipedia as a whole, when I get the chance. That includes trying to be an active and productive member of the Wikipedia community. I don't think my points were unreasonable, I try to make neutral and constructive edits wherever possible. and furthermore, this is a discussion; I can't save the page by myself, even if they were paying me. Maybe I shouldn't bother? MrMarkBGregory (talk) 12:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 02:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the creating editor, I wanted to leave my comments. After covering them while studying, I was amazed Altaro didn't have a Wikipedia article. So started the Wikipedia article as they are Malta's fastest growing software company. There are various publications that give them this title and anyone who researches the subject properly will find this. Significant coverage - The article currently references with sustained significant coverage in multiple very reliable sources including The Malta Independent, Malta Today and Times of Malta as mentioned by @MrMarkBGregory. I see no reason why this article should be deleted. On the other hand, I found someone has added the promotional stuff in the article that i will remove to improve the article. As editing can fix the issues.Goyalradhika (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it stands, since the article is about the Company, the references fail the criteria for establishing notability and therefore a !vote should be to Delete. The references referred to above (the Malta references) fail
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete:
WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:NCORP. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:01, 10 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. Lourdes 04:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donal O'Sullivan (priest)

Donal O'Sullivan (priest) (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)

routine obit notices and the like--fails WP:MILITARY. WP is nota memorial. DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete nothing notable. Uninvited Company 21:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; trivia.
WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not notable either as a chaplain or as a priest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as he was a brave victim of the Somme but not meeting the criteria for a stand alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I don't see how this particular Donal O'Sullivan passes GNG .Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per sources found below. Icewhiz (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe KEEP:

The Guardian, 'Heavy casualties. Wounded, wounded, wounded': stories of the battle of the Somme, That's the title of the article, but note that it is a qoute taken from Fr. O'Sullivan's diary, described further down the page.

The Kerryman, 'Greater courage' of fallen Kerry Somme hero Fr Donal recalled

Irish Times: Irish Church leaders call for joint commemoration of the 1916 Rising and the Somme
, (brief)

Irish Independent: How Irish priests brought comfort to the battlefield (brief)

Catholic News: Father Donal O’Sullivan’s priesthood and sacrifice remembered 100 years after his death in The Battle of the Somme

And not only during the recent wave of centennial commemoration, several hits come up in gBooks as far back as this 1998 book https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-cross-on-the-sword-9780225668254/, [23] p. 131.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's roll this one over for another week. The article is new. Article creator User:Webwayz responded to DGG's PROD by adding 2 good sources, but hasn't logged in since this AfD started. Plus I though of making time to check the book I mentioned above (can't see the relevant pages online,) but the library is closed until after the New Year. This may not be a fair week to determine the notability of history articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow discussion of the newly proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The Independent source is strong, with significant coverage, and reporting on the work of two historians, and it states his claim to notability, "Of all the Somme stories that resonant in this county, his is perhaps the most extraordinary - for the bravery of his sacrifice and for what would come later. "We could tell 100 stories about what happened in the war, but when we focus on one story it really brings all the pain, suffering and grim consequences to light and there's no story better than Fr O'Sullivan's," historian Maurice O'Keeffe said." It would be good to have more than one significant source - as the book that E.M.Gregory found is not online, it would be good if someone could check what it says about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty remarkable experience. I walked into a library and pulled a codex off a shelf. Added what I found to our virtual page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass
WP:ONEEVENT-y. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep added some text sourced to Johnstone, Tom (1996). The Cross on theSword: Catholic Chaplains in the Forces. I haven't added everything listed above, but I do think that there has been enough
WP:SIGCOV over many years to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - between the news sources (Kerryman etc good), plus the two books, seems to satisfy NSOLDIER/GNG.
WP:HEY applies. I feel BLP1E would be a bit harsh - it's a fairly long time span. I would ask the various deletes to take a look at the sources and see if their !votes are still justified. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:HEY, the collected sources now available demonstrate notability per GNG. BLP1E does not apply as criterion 3 is not met: The Somme was a notable event, and O'Sullivan's role, while relatively minor, is well-documented. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 9 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. Lourdes 04:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post West Dugout

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

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

This is an article about a place on the National Register of Historic Places that contains only two sentences. The first sentence has a citation to the National Register Information System. The second sentence claims that the historic place is a "dugout", but is unsourced nor does the NRIS verify this. It is also a perfectly reasonable assumption that the place once belonged to a Mr. Dugout who may or may not have been an acquaintance of Mr. Dubois, Mr. Dupont, or Mr. Dupree. The NRIS states that this place has an address restriction meaning its nomination form is not available for download from the National Park Service, the National Archive, nor the Texas Historical Commission. A Google search yields no results with meaningful information not requiring subscription. As such, this article provides no information not already available in National Register of Historic Places listings in Garza County, Texas nor is it likely that any new source of information will be available online any time soon. This article should therefore be deleted until such time as someone is able to obtain a reliable source to create an article more substantial than what is already published on the county list summary. Fortguy (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
missfortune 06:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "nor does the NRIS verify this," although the NRIS listing title is "Post West Dugout", just wondering why nris would call it "dugout" if it isn't one? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you ask the NPS for a redacted version of the nomination form, they'll usually send you one, and the Texas SHPO might as well. (I'd do it myself, except I'm definitely not going to get a response during the government shutdown and I don't want my request to get lost because of that.) Not sure what to do with the article in the meantime, but it's expandable and verifiable long-term. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The place is listed on NRHP. Address restrictions are common with archaeological and other protected sites where the exact location should not be published. This dugout appears to be a former town site. As with other NRHP listed sites, the documentation exists. It is a matter of retrieving it. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Previous commenters are being polite. It is obviously notable because listing on the National Register is only possible if the place is notable to a standard high above Wikipedia's standard for notability. There exists extensive documentation by experts about the importance of the place. --Doncram (talk) 07:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a consensus at WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places not to create stubs solely from NRIS data. This is worse still when NRIS data is redacted. The subject is probably notable, but what we have right now is a non-article; nothing of value is lost by deleting it. A red link is preferable because it signals that the article is still needed—and any champions of the West Post Dugout can recreate it when they actually have reliable sources in hand. Kim Post (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no secondary information on this whatsoever I can find. Fails
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SportingFlyer talk 03:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ since I didn't formally place that vote when nominating the sub-sub-stub. There is no basis to have this article at present when it contains less info than the county list article provides. The one vote so far to keep was made by the page creator claiming that there exists extensive documentation by experts about the importance of the place. If he has access to such documentation, then he should have included it on the page when he created it rendering this discussion moot. @Coolabahapple, I don't know whether this is a dugout house, barn, canoe, fire-pit, or any other reason for the name in NRIS. @TheCatalyst31 and @Gene93k, while the nomination form may be available upon request, I believe most editors would rather spend such time and effort on historic places they feel are much higher priorities. If someone wishes to go to that trouble, then, by all means, they can recreate the article when they have enough information to provide something meaningful. Within this county, I would think the county courthouse, the one non-restricted address site without an article, would be a much higher priority. Also, Gene93k, I'm guessing that this is not a separate town site as "Post" is the name of the town that is currently the county seat. I don't know for a fact that my guess is true, and the NRIS does not address that; so, it would be presumptuous of me to assume that the name was eponymous to the town instead of referring to a location by a post oak, something to do with the mail service, a fence post, or some other kind of post without citation. Fortguy (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortguy: A nomination is always considered a delete vote, so I've struck your vote. I've only seen one AfD where the nominator then !voted keep and it was because of a messy procedural issue (and an incorrect use of AfD.) The closer can still use your comment when judging consensus, though. SportingFlyer talk 08:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was unsure about that. Fortguy (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:WHYN there aren't enough sources to support an article.--Pontificalibus 09:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

El Libro de la Tierra Negra

El Libro de la Tierra Negra (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)

Don't believe the novel is worth its own English language article (can't find any coverage on it in English). All relevant information seems already included in
talk) 06:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Sources do not need to be in English; maybe sources exist in Spanish. That said, the eswiki article is nearly identical, including the complete lack of sources, and hasn't changed much since the copycio content was eliminated in January 2006. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
talk) 01:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Then redirect to Carlos Gardini, for coverage is unlikely to exist in any other language. However, the connection to the other subject is significant. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^What he said Trillfendi (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Google searches in english and spanish (of which I am near fluent in) turned up no results. ––
^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:42, 10 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 17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voicetap

Voicetap (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:NCORP by a mile or so. ∯WBG^converse 06:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originated as a
WP:NCORP. The former website redirects to a railway recruitment page. Brief mentions in an article on a subsequent venture by those involved in the company, iZooto (on blocked site YourStory), also do not provide the necessary in-depth coverage in this particular company and its presumed demise. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Fails
WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I actually disagree with WBG as it fails by two miles, not one. Nothing out there even comes close to
WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 23:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - fails GNG too. ––
^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 10 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 merge to Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Animal. Lourdes 04:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dire animal

Dire animal (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)

Roughly zero out of universe notability, fails
WP:GNG and is purely fancruft with no secondary sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 06:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Couldn't it be merged or redirected to Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Animal instead? Regards So Why 11:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge either as per above or to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
Talk: Contribs) 15:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Will likely need to be much shorter to fit into section; excessive amount of trivia.
Talk: Contribs) 15:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I've reduced the article size significantly, perhaps now it can be merged somewhere.
π, ν) 04:33, 7 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 17:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of live-action television series of 2010

List of live-action television series of 2010 (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)

Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list. "Live action television series" encompasses the vast majority of all scripted drama and comedy series that exist at all (i.e. every single one that isn't animated), so it's not a useful basis for a list. Further, the series chosen for listing here are a highly unrepresentative minority of all the series that could have been listed -- some other 2010 series premieres that haven't been added here include Hot in Cleveland, Detroit 1-8-7, Hiccups, Death Comes to Town, Dan for Mayor, Call Me Fitz, Shattered, Todd and the Book of Pure Evil, Trauma, Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures, Lost Girl, Big Lake and Terriers, and that's still not even one per cent of a complete list. This is just not a good idea, which is probably why we don't have an equivalent list for any other year in the history of television. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 04:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The '20xx in (nation) television' articles cover this much better already, and require solid sourcing (and disregard minor series which don't merit mention here, most importantly). chatter) 05:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom Spiderone 23:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is impossible to come anywhere near fulfilling and is not helpful as a list. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:18, 9 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. Anyone terribly concerned about this not being closed as a redirect, can contact me on my talk page and I'll reconsider the close. Lourdes 04:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solicitor General of Washington

Solicitor General of Washington (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 presented notability on the subject of this article which has only one primary source. No other states have articles for their Solicitor General and this should either be deleted or have its redirect restored to
^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Articles on
talk) 06:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -
WP:BEFORE failed to find anything but drive-by quotes from the present Solicitor General, and nothing about their post. I'm leaning towards delete but am interested to see if anyone else can turn up something. FOARP (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment leaning keep: a significant post with in-depth coverage, e.g. in this book.
talk) 21:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

While that book is about
talk) 21:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

And I see no presented notability on the office itself. The only notable event is when
^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
If that is the case than I'll change my vote to redirect due to insufficient coverage.
talk) 21:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Besides nominator, there appears to be only one !vote (a redirect) so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article at
π, ν) 04:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Delete~~ Redirect (to Noah Purcell -despite a traipse through a mix of BEFORE sweeps (anyone with access to legal journals could take a look there), there seems little coverage of the office itself. I currently think there are at least two reasonable redirect targets (the list and Noah) thus picking one would be inappropriate. However I'm particularly open to someone making a good case for one being a clear redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Redditaddict69: Being an idiot I missed the different position! Chetsford's argument also isn't unreasonable, but it makes sense to go the thing most looked for. Obviously as soon as we get another well-covered person in the position we'd have an argument to de-redirect it (probably to create a disambig). Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I've just spent the better part of a half-hour searching for sources and can find nothing. Indeed, if it weren't for the coverage about Purcell himself and the OSG's own website, there would be no evidence this position even existed. It doesn't even appear to be an office codified under the
WP:NPOL and certainly doesn't pass the GNG. (For the record, I oppose a redirect to Purcell since he is not Solicitor-General-for-Life.) Chetsford (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Chetsford's reasoning. --Lockley (talk) 17:41, 10 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 09:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! (program)

LOL! (program) (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 per
WP:N. SL93 (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
miss fortune 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
miss fortune 06:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even on a
WP:GNG, Emmy or Gemini or Canadian Screen Award nominations, or other evidence of notability beyond simply existing, but this had none of that. Bearcat (talk) 19:53, 7 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 09:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary Jack

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Imaginary Jack

Articles for deletion/Imaginary Jack (2nd nomination)

Imaginary Jack (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:NBAND. Local band with no national tours, no radio play, no hits, no major record deal, no significant media coverage outside of Minneapolis. Most of the references are unreliable sources. Rogermx (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I can see no redeeming features here. Our article describes this a a purely local band and cites no reliable sources, and I can find no such sources myself.
Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 3 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 09:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaa Gaas

The Gaa Gaas (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 all
WP:BEFORE search were blogs - other perhaps than the vibrantjersey.je reference, which I've added to the article. That site is part-blog. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, when you remove blogs and passing mentions there is very little left, fails
WP:NBAND. Hzh (talk) 13:40, 7 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 09:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mari–Udmurt War

Mari–Udmurt War (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)

Legendary event from a medieval epic described as a historic one. I can't see the article potentially expanded. There are no entries on it neither in the Russian Wikipedia nor in the Udmurt Wikipedia. VanHelsing.16 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 01:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. The only possible route for expansion is by turning the article into one on the Mari national epic (which I think is the source). That itself would be difficult and the present stub is no great starting point. Srnec (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Epic itself is almost certainly sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion, but the war within it does not. Perhaps if the work garners more notability in later years this article can be reinstated, similar to other fictional wars such as
talk) 07:29, 3 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. Nobody wants to keep this, and there's no agreement that this is closely enough connected to March for Life (Washington, D.C.). to warrant a merger there. Sandstein 09:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March for Life Chicago

March for Life Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Limited coverage in local sources but no
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. wumbolo ^^^ 20:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete & merge Unless there is national coverage of the Chicago march, it should be merged into
WP:WAWARD) 23:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge and redirect is what I mean.-
WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:BLP
issues, etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to March for Life (Washington, D.C.). As RoySmith indicated, "delete and merge" is rarely a proper outcome. Wikipedia:Merge and delete indicates that admins should feel free to interpret "Merge and delete" votes as "Merge" votes instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Redirect I don't see this as being related to the Washington DC event any more than
π, ν) 04:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@
Power~enwiki: - could I ask you to clarify what !vote you actually want or whether it's something in the vein of neutral but not redirect? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
This isn't a vote. I don't see compelling enough arguments to vote keep or delete, but prefer either to the suggested redirect.
π, ν) 21:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Fails to meet the GNG and I see no connection to the Washington rally except that they're both pro-life held near the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. If there was a list of such marches I'd support a redirect there, but I couldn't find such a list. Sandals1 (talk) 18:32, 8 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 09:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Gorgeous

The Art Gorgeous (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)

Magazine that lacks RS. A google search didn't turn up any sources that are independent or reliable. Many of the citations are short reprints of articles from the magazine itself, or short interviews of the founder. Fails
WP:GNG. Citrivescence (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete sources do not establish GNG. Article sources are peripheral or passing mentions without depth.
talk) 09:45, 4 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 09:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A'maal Nuux

A'maal Nuux (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)

Promotionally toned
WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete the sources do not add up to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Talk 04:50, 5 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 09:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Prehistoric Park

List of locations in Prehistoric 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)

Article contains no sources and no assertion of it's importance. Would be better suited for a fan-wiki. Moosehadley 01:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: There is no possible way I can find any importance for its subject to be included in this encyclopedia.Gabeluna27 (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to lacking any reason to be included in Wikipedia, the article has numerous issues such as being written in a primarily in-universe style
talk) 07:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded list, no clear notability --DannyS712 (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:38, 10 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 merge to
(non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman

The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman (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 general search only turns up with one Huffington Post article about the film surrounded by other links that are essentially its synopsis. Since the debate over charter schools spurred a film rebuttal, perhaps a merger on Waiting for Superman makes sense? Tangledupinbleu chs (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DJ: I created the article. The suggested merger sounds fine with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidJoyner (talk • contribs) 02:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 06:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I think that a merger would be good. Tangledupinbleu chs, since DavidJoyner is open to a merge, do you want the AfD to be closed? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:13, 4 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_3&oldid=1142614041"