Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 January	1 February >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Weber (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman. Searches for him pull up a lot of unrelated Ralph Webers (string: "Ralph weber" consultant) as well as name-drops and quotables. The article is also

extremely bare on sources and would be even if the sources proffered weren't all useless, being his website, a blog, and two YouTube videos which appear to me to be copyright violations of some stripe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails
significant coverage. SITH (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Monkey Business Institute

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

This just doesn't have

WP:GNG here. Marquardtika (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 22:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 31 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Thomas-Drake

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

Sources are entirely not

WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds some quotes in RS but nothing covering the subject of the article herself. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are primary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable media personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourced entirely by either
WP:42. SITH (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian S. Ardern

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

Non-notable subject that fails

WP:BASIC notability standards. Searches for independent, reliable sources with significant coverage have provided nothing. Coverage found consists of fleeting passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a very important person in the church but I can find no good independent sources. fails
WP:BASIC. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply
]

Delete Undersourced and not enough web coverage despite well known important person in the Church community, as I agree with User:Dushan Jugum. Sheldybett (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with above,
BLP concerns arise about the lack of sourcing. Potentially notable, but source searches on Google and WorldCat turn up little. SITH (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl B. Cook

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

Non-notable subject that fails

WP:BASIC. Searches for independent, reliable sources are only providing minor passing mentions, brief quotations and name checks, none of which establish notability. No significant coverage appears to exist at all in said necessary sources. Primary sources found are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a very important person in the church but I can find no good independent sources. fails
WP:BASIC. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply
]

Delete: exactly the same as points raised here. SITH (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Commons

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

hyper-local sources only, not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete for failing
WP:GNG. As the nominator pointed out, the coverage is local and routine. Can you imagine if every strip mall with this level of coverage were included in the encyclopedia? Jmertel23 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non notable mall, 32 stores is hardly noteworthy. No significant coverage in secondary sources outside of local mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
WP:MILL shopping center. MB 18:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brosix Instant Messenger

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

Previously deleted

WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. It is promotional, and the sources (to borrow the plain speaking of a nominator at another Afd) are appalling. There could perhaps be an actual encyclopedia article in this subject's future, but this isn't it. – Athaenara ✉ 22:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Appalling? So Forbes, PCMag, The Next Web, Entrepreneur, CIO Аpplications, TechPrevue, and all the others are all "appalling" sources? For real? --Daimyo2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it's spam and has already been afd'd 3 times and nothing has changed. Praxidicae (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason why all the other Instant Messenger tools around have their own page, including minor ones no one cares about and others that are much more blatantly promotional, while Brosix cannot. It seems more like someone really doesn't want this page to exist for unknown reasons. By the way, I don't even know how the other pages were made in the first place, but much of the arguments in favor of deleting have now been addressed. The page has several notable sources and reviews (such as one from PCMag - which even gave a negative review which I cited for the sake of neutrality), The Next Web, Forbes, Entrepreneur, and there's nothing really promotional here. The other pages have been deleted ages ago before all these reviews were published. --Daimyo2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to keep it as neutral as possible by showing all the negative aspects that emerged from the most authoritative reviews out there. I made sure that every single source was authoritative this time, and that the assertion of notability was significant enough to justify a page. I checked a lot of reviews around the web, I found that the software is used by some pretty important organizations (such as the Harvard University), and I tried to stay as neutral as possible. I did all I can to provide a balanced overview of this tool, I really can't understand why it should be flagged as "promotional". I mean, if there's something that looks like it's promotional, please, let's work on it and let's revise it. --Daimyo2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Daimyo2: You're presenting policy-based arguments in defense of a neutral encyclopedic page. If that position is strongly defensible, more editors will support it. If that happens I may change my own. – Athaenara ✉ 23:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to give a bit more detail on my thinking with regard to the sources. Some of them give quite trivial coverage - Business2Community, NextWeb, Tech Times, Entepreneur and Business.com just have a few sentences in '5 ways to...' type articles - not enough coverage for
UGC, so not reliable (and the Alternative to piece was written by Brosix!). The Forbes piece isn't even about Brosix - it just contains a short quote from the CEO. CIO Review is a company profile, largely written by the CEO - it's not independent. CEO World is an interview with the CEO - we can't use his own words to support assertions about his company, that's not independent. Socialnomics is described on the page as a 'promoted post' - an advertorial, so not independent. I could go on, but basically I think that the closest thing to a reliable, independent source giving decent depth is the PC Mag
review; that alone isn't enough to establish notability.

As for the language, I'll let other editors judge, but it looks very promotional to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's address the issues one at a time. About the sources, I understand some of them are not full reviews, but if the tool (or the CEO) have been featured by so many significant magazines over the course of the last two years, IMHO the product has the right to be mentioned among its competitors. I do totally agree that most of these reviews will probably come from PR jobs, but they're so many, that it is out of question that the product already left a footprint. This IMHO is sufficient to earn Brosix a page on its own, especially considering that this underdog still survives since 2006 - that's 13 years, it's notable enough in my agenda according to
WP:NSOFT
?

Moving to the language issue. I can't see where the language may look promotional, but I'm more than willing to change it if you or the other editors feel it looks "advertisey". I simply followed the template of other IM tools such as Wickr and Tox_(protocol). Seriously, I don't care about promoting this tool at all, so if you think there's some part that needs to be revised, please just point that out, and I'll be happy to work on it. A possible approach could be to highlight the fact that Brosix really is an underdog, and always has been. It survived so far, but it never shined because it just doesn't offer anything that makes it stand out from competition. I can't find anything else more "neutral" than this other than just bashing it (which I guess it's not fair for the opposite reason). Daimyo2 (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew that most of the reviews came from PR jobs, why bother including them at all? They are not independent, and aren't suitable sources for an entry here. The fact that there are lots of them doesn't change that at all. It's not a question of fairness - no subject has a 'right' to an article - it's a question of whether or not we can write a quality article with the sources that are available. If we can't, we don't write the article.

I don't see how

WP:SUSTAINED

applies - that raises the bar for notability, it doesn't drop it. It says that a subject needs sustained coverage in reliable sources over a period of time (as opposed to hitting the headlines for a day and then disappearing). There's nothing there to imply that sustained trivial coverage equates to significant coverage.

WP:NCORP. Brosix is distributed commercially, so it's clear that NCORP guidelines apply. You can read the guidance there for yourself, but right upfront it says No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, or we have nothing to build an article around. Only one of the sources currently in the article appears to be usable; if better ones could be found, a better article could be written, but we need the sources first. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Daimyo2: I personally think it should have been speedy deleted as promotional. The troubling aspects to me are some of the language (e.g. The service is designed to allow streamlined inter-office communication without the risk of being hacked or losing sensitive information as a result of leaks. and One of the oldest Instant Messengers available, Brosix is currently used by several global corporations, private universities, and public governmental organizations such as Xerox, Harvard University, Georgia Department of Community Health, and many more, the weight given to product features (which includes the security section) relative to other kinds of information (e.g. reviews, objective history) and the inclusion of information generally thought trivial (funding rounds). Fixing all this would require a substantial reworking of the article in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NSOFT

- something that so far nobody wanted to take into account even if it seems very important to me. Stating why this tool may have had some form of significance is a requirement, this is not a sentence slapped there to say "it's a great product".

The weight given to product features and the funding part was included to copy the format used for similar products in this same niche. All messengers are really similar to each other, what makes this one a little bit different from the others is that Brosix is more secure. Else, it's a product with an outdated interface - as I clearly explained in the features section. The reviews that I included are a negative one and a good one. I can remove the good one, but wasn't the purpose of the articles to show some form of neutrality? Daimyo2 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bring it back to the sources again, the assertion mentioned above that 'Brosix is currently used by...' is sourced to a listicle in Tech Times. The source is so breathlessly puffy that I can't believe it's not a paid feature; and even then, it only partially supports the assertion. First, it only mentions the three named organisations (nothing about 'several global corporations including...'); I'm also troubled by equating 'trusted by' with 'used by'. 'Trusted by' could mean that it's an integral part of their operations, but it could just as easily mean that it's not outright banned for staff to use it, or even that they trialed it once and gave positive feedback, but no longer actually use it. PR folk are pretty good at turning very little into something impressive without actually lying - that's why we shouldn't use sources like this.GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found the information on their website, here: https://www.brosix.com/customers/ but as you can easily imagine, I thought it wasn't a great idea to use this list as a primary source. Truth to be told, it seems they work with a bunch of pretty big shots - just look at the gov agencies and non-profit organizations in that list. Problem is, I can't find any source mentioning this anywhere. Daimyo2 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daimyo2, If reliable sources don't mention it then we shouldn't be using it. You are of course welcome to include positive reviews - assuming they come from reliable sources (which I think Girth demonstrated that was not). As for the other articles, Wikipedia has evolved to hold companies and products to a tighter standard. I would be unsurprised if other articles in this space are also not meeting our standard. However, in an AfD discussion, we judge each article against the standard and policy as opposed to comparing them to other articles. Hope that makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to the best of my possibilities. I removed the positive review since it didn't come from a reliable source, deleted any "extra" info such as funding, changed everything you indicated as potentially promotional in the introduction. I don't know what to do about the sentence about the companies they work with though, since it still seems important to meet
WP:NSOFT. I understand that it comes from a source that may have been paid by a PR agency, as Girth Summit correctly pointed out, but since I've looked at their website and they apparently work with over a dozen of significant organizations (such as universities, corporations and gov agencies), I think it's still fair to leave it here. They're not lying about that, that's pretty obvious. Let me know what you think, I suppose we can fix the text to describe this product for what it really is - i.e. a somewhat less important yes never-dying underdog IM that survived for 13 years notwithstanding its fierce competition. Daimyo2 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

A list of customers on their website does not help it pass

WP:NCORP. In my previous career, I used to maintain a very similar list of customers on my company's website. I can assure you that we added companies to the list no matter how small an order we got from them; we did not remove them, however, if they switched to a competitor, unless they explicitly asked us to (which, AFAICR, nobody ever did). We simply can't rely on sources like this to establish notability, or even to support assertions of this nature. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete and salt per
Wikipedia is not for promotion. SITH (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kulvinder Singh Johal

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

nn singer tagged since 2010

talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of significant coverage and multiple notable work --DBig Xrayᗙ 01:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E. R. Hooton

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

Non-notable author. I was able to find one brief review of one of his books [1], but far from meeting

WP:NAUTHOR. b uidhe 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, heres another in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but given that the review declared his work "unexceptional" and decried his "cut-and-paste approach", I don't see how this is the strongest support for notability. b uidhe 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the two reviews linked above, the subject simply doesn't meet the
WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. Pretty much any author is going to have reviews of their works; that doesn't make them notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

However, if their body of work is "significant or well-known", and there are a number of reviews it does - see no. 3 of
WP:AUTHOR (not that i'm saying this is the case here). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I absolutely agree that substantial coverage of a work via reviews could make the work/author well-known, but the small number of (not very easy to find) reviews in this case don't seem to me to meet that criterion. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews linked above plus this one and this one. It doesn't matter whether reviews are positive, negative or neutral: it's their existence that matters.
Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Mr Hooton has written some well-regarded books (the works on the Luftwaffe are considered among the best available on the topic), but isn't a high profile historian by any means. None of the reviews of his books above provides the coverage of him as a person required to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, artist and author articles can pass

WP:SIGCOV or have an impact on a scholarly field, we can keep the page about the author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In-service program

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

Platitudinous dictionary article. Devoid of useful content Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is devoid of
policy explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep This is not a simple dictionary term but as Andrew Davidson pointed out, it is a perfectly valid stub article. Clearly a notable topic. Sorting through the many Google scholar results that mention it, I see there have been studies done on how it effects teachers and students in the classrooms. [2] [3] Dream Focus 03:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would be in such an article which is not adequately covered in Continuing education?Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since that article exist, just do a merge discussion. No reason to try to delete this. Remember, deletion should be the last resort. Dream Focus 05:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything to merge.Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to

Scorpion (Marvel Comics). Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Scorpia (comics)

)

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of three articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Mostly a female counterpart of Mac Gargan. Primarily a Spider-Man villain. But not a major one. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into
Scorpion (Marvel Comics). No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into
WP:GNG means no requirement for own article. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus for Keep, given that though it wasn't policy, the discussion of it was sufficient to provide notability.

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Estcoin

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

Was never an official plan according to CNBC Џ 12:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article should be updated to reflect this. Even if turns out it was never an official Estonian Government policy, and was just the over-publicized brainchild of the director of their e-Residency program, it still remains notable per the extensive and continuing coverage it has received - continuing coverage that includes the article you have just provided. --
(talk) 12:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above vote.
talk) 16:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
NoCOBOL. Passes notability per coverage. Balkywrest (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Marginal to delete - all the coverage is a single publicity push for a thing that doesn't exist. I'm entirely unconvinced anyone is going to come here to look for this thing - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: does not meet
WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. The page creator is a probable sock; please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1-555-confide. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- What do you mean "significant RS coverage not found"? CNBC and CNN not good enough for you? also, sock's content was stricken out from history. Completely new article.
  talk) 21:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - Meritless nom's rationale. Yes it was a plan, but Eurobank killed it. It was a notable development for a small country. It definitely met
talk) 21:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets
notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – Meets
WP:GNG Misterpottery (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maalos

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

No claims of notability, sole referenced is a dead link, tried to Google for sources and found nothing. Article appears to be about a monthly magazine, which may not be notable at all, and geared to a local community. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason why the Maalos is not so notable worldwide or on the web is because it is a very fanatic paper, not even using internet etc. But there are tens of thousands of Ultra-Orhodox Yiddish Speakers across the New York State and Israel who know of this publication for years.
Delete per nom. Even if online sources are unavailable, there must be printed sources in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines of
WP:V. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in Tablet, Mosiac, [4], and probably a whole lot of Yiddish coverage as well.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per coverage found by Icewhiz, as linked above (which, should be added to article page). Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there's some degree of duplication going on between Icewhiz's sources, and it obviously has to meet the higher
WP:NORG requirements. That said, there's enough to make me teeter on the retain side. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. As noted in the discussion the article is not backed by any RS sources. Which means it fails WP:V and there is nothing to merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bison (comics)

)

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. Is linked by three non-list articles in passing mention. Character appears eight times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or List of Masters of Evil members. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. Valid search term, no other likely target, no real info worth preserving. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let his page stay. While he has appeared eight times, he might appear again. Plus, he is one of a few characters that make up the category page for fictional bison. As for BOZ's claim if this gets merged, it will have to be in the list of Marvel Comics characters that start with B or the section for Crimson Cowl's first incarnation of the Masters of Evil on it's list page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. Has absolutely zero reliable secondary sources to show any sort of notability. The arguments that "he might appear again" or that the page is part of a category are both complete non-policy arguments for keeping, and should be disregarded. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The issues I nominated this for was sourcing and the basic research I had done had not uncovered any reliable ones. Other editors more persistent than me have managed to find sources, rendering the point which I listed this on moot.

(non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 10:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Amir Jadidi

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

WP:GNG ^{[Username Needed]} 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not have any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this interview recording, ifilm, Tehran Times, and Tasnim News Agency. On top of him winning an award at a major film festival, the
WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRezvanzari (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes
Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Inhumans. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auran (comics)

)

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. Character appears four times, according to Marvel Wikia. Too minor to be merged. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or List of Inhumans. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Merge into List of Inhumans. Most details can be trimmed, but the TV appearance means it's a likely search term. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Inhumans per above. The character is fairly minor, and has too few secondary sources to establish individual notability. However, their appearances as part of the Inhumans in both the show and the mobile game means that a merge to the main article would be useful. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Benjamin Powell

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

Article on an American academic that describes his publications. GNG fail. I could be wrong, but a search turned up very little on him. He is a director of an institute, and I'm aware that some academic chair positions equate to notability. On the other hand, the only claim to notability I can see here is that he has published articles, which is true of all academics.

talk) 14:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy pass of
WP:PROF #1 and #7. Multiple interviews with media and conservative organizations, which is unusual for academics.[5][6][7][8][9] There are also multiple reviews (of varying quality) of his 2014 book [10][11][12][13] His work seems to be frequently cited by pro-sweatshop advocates (for example, [14][15][16][17][18]). b uidhe 22:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I have found these three reviews of one of the subject's books, and his Google Scholar profile shows 1790 citations with an h-index of 21. I think that is enough for a pass of
Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – The fact that his organizations, the Independent Institute and Texas Tech, are highly regarded gives weight to his own notability. – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be kept, on the basis of Powell's individual notability, but that doesn't mean that anyone who works for the Independent Institute or Texas Tech is notable: see
Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep A bit of digging reveals that he meets numerous criteria under
WP:PROF, particularly #1 (publishing record and google scholar citation metrics, along with being known for his work on immigration and sweatshops), #6 (performed the role of director and other high ranking positions at academic journals and institutions), and #7—which I think makes the strongest case for him (has authored several books, regularly contributes to popular media outlets, and has a long list of appearances on conventional media)[19][20]
. The wiki page can use some beefing-up (I've seen worst) but it should not be deleted.eljorgio 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Demartini

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

I'm unconvinced that much has changed since the previous AFD. I can find plenty of mentions of the guy in the press e.g. [21] [22] [23] but they all have the distinct air of promotional churnalism to them and are very thin on biographical details. This is probably the best source I can find but again it reads like a press release e.g. including the ridiculous claim that he's read 30,000 books (10 a week for his entire life). The claims made in those sources that he is a renowned expert do not appear to be verifiable from reputable sources. SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be an obvious Delete, article is overly promotional and lacks reliable sourcing of any kind, everything said in the '07 AfD is just as true today. SWL36 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. page contains a lot of claims - like being interviewed in a couple of FRINGy, really minor indie documentaries - but no solid sources. Still, to be fair, I ran a Proquest news archive search on him, what came up were press releases: "Focus on what's most meaningful: Human behaviourist |Dr John Demartini offers advice on finding the perfect job," and listings : "Dr. John Demartini to speak at financial seminar". Not profiles or book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanatopsis (band)

)

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

Fails

WP:NBAND. --wooden superman 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buckethead. The band has one obviously notable member, so a merge there makes sense. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buckethead - I agree with the above vote. Fans in the know will tell you that Buckethead is prone to lots and lots of side projects, which might get a little bit of press because he is in them. But this particular project did not get enough notice to justify its own article, so it can be introduced briefly in Buckethead's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Streamers

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

Fails

talk) 12:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete No
WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure of the
WP:GNG. I couldn’t find a single reliable source (beware false positives with a name consisting entirely of generic buzzwords.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, does not meet
WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:N. Anarchyte (talk | work) 05:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a stub lacking sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Schultz

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

No lasting notability. Just an old tax evasion case, and some gossip about escorting. Fails

WP:ANYBIO. — JFG ^talk 12:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete I'm not seeing the high quality sources and balanced coverage required for WP:BLP. b uidhe 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a
one-event incident that would have remained unknown except for the sexcitement. There never was any ongoing notability, just gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lunden De'Leon

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

Nothing to indicate that

WP:BIO are met. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability is provided. I haven't been able to find much; this^[1] does not read like an impartial account. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Aftab (politician)

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN (not an elected member of parliament) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability per
WP:GNG. samee converse 07:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur L. Aidala

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

This is an unreferenced BLP of a lawyer. There are some inline links but none of these are any help in establishing notability, as they're either dead, not independent or links to the homepages of organisations he's associated with. Searches aren't finding any in-depth, independent coverage of him which we need for a BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Attorneys aren't noteworthy just because they handle some noteworthy cases. Attorney succeeding with a novel defense is "attorney doing job" which isn't noteworthy. Absense of NPOV reliable secondary sources is big indication here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Atomic Space Bug

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

Non-notable film. Fails

WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am failing to find the slightest shred of notability, impact, or attention for this. --Calton | Talk 05:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Killbillies

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

No significant coverage per

WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree. Could only find 1 newspaper reference (via ProQuest: 'Embracing the horror',Syvret, Paul. The Courier - Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]06 Nov 2008: 39.) and it was not substantial. Cabrils (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Sofer

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

Non-notable subject PepperBeast (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Maybe in the future notability might turn up but it’s not there. Trillfendi (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Upon Googling his name, there are articles written solely about him in ~~Slate~~ Tablet Magazine and the Times of Israel. He is also mentioned in two books. While the current sources on this article are pretty awful, I think he meets GNG, and this article could be fine with some cleanup. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tablet magazine gives him a passing mention, not significant coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The
WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The man appears to be notable. Passes
WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant converage in third-party sources, and the one great source (The Times of Israel) heavily references his Wikipedia page.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of accuracy, The Times of Israel article is quite long, and mostly about Sofer's creation of a new form of martial arts with grand, unsupported claims to have been secretly passed down father-to-son form the days of King David. But, here's the thing, it had a real following when that article was published. The Wikipedia material is cited as support for the author's pointing out that over the course of Sofer's life, the way he describes his childhood has changed dramatically as he has constructed and reconstructed his identity. In short, he is a fabulist. But he is a fabulist with INDEPTH press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete It looks like he created his own martial art and claimed to be a grandmaster, which is not an indication of martial arts notability--or at least there seems to be no evidence to dispute my assessment. Claims of being a descendent of warriors from thousands of years ago reminds me of many of the dubious martial arts claims I've seen from "ancient" Asian arts. His hip-hop career doesn't show notability. Coverage is just passing mentions except for the two local articles, both of which were published under editor-in-chief David Horovitz (making me question their independence from each other). Even if independent, I don't think two local articles shows the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]

I'm unclear as to why the Times of Israel is considered 'local', or why having the same editor-in-chief for two articles with different reporters/authors would make the articles non-independent. (I was under the assumption that editors in chief were not the creators of the content, but I might be missing something?) Gilded Snail (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Local because both papers are based in Jerusalem as is Sofer. Editors in chief carry power about what's published and I thought it an odd coincidence, but it could be just that. Claims of ancient ancestors with extraordinary powers always make me suspicious.Sandals1 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah no, that's reasonable. To be clear, I think he's a total con-man and is generally not-legit, but I do think that he's a GNG-passing con-man.Gilded Snail (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:HEY I added sourced material about his first career, as rap singer who was an Israeli music sensation in the early 90s. Note that is is an old article and that has ~~a lot~~ several of incoming links, usually an indicaiton of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment What do you mean by "a lot of incoming links"? I found about six links from other Wikipedia articles, including one generic "see also" and one from an article about another rapper of doubtful notability. PepperBeast (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rephrased to "several links" Frankly, I was surprised to see any on a guy who is so, er... unusual. But our gauge is not eccentricity, it is reliable sourcing. And

WP:SIGCOV exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Haaretz in 2012 says he was a big influence on the Israeli hip hop scene.[24] - so that would satisfy NARTIST. My BEFORE in Hebrew leads me to think he has SIGCOV for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:34, 31 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 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vision International School

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

Lacks coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NSCHOOL - lacks any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StartEngine

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

trivial investment company; no evidence of notability under NCORP DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. (The information is also missing from the article.) — Newslinger talk 10:25, 31 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. Article was virtually identical to the previously deleted version under a different title.

WP:G4'd, salted, user warned not to recreate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Conspiracy Series (Special Edition)

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Pinging @
talk) 05:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Nope, only the article with the same name only apply. This excludes soft delete, substantially different namespace and you would be ineligible to tag for G4. Sheldybett (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 06:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[2] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). So this will unlikely will apply to G4. Sheldybett (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I'll leave that judgment call to someone who can compare this page to the deleted page from the deletion discussion that closed four days ago.

talk) 06:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 31 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 deleted per

G7 by Athaenara (non-admin closure) Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Usnavi (given name)

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

It seems that this is a name specific to the musical. "Usnavi" already redirects to In the Heights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect/delete Name is not obviously notable on its own. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per :Reywas92, the article has no claim of singifance at all. Sheldybett (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect I really only wrote this specifically because the name "Usnavi" is indeed a given Hispanic name. It gives nothing, considering it is only known in the musical In the Heights.

Lafayette Baguette ^talk 22:27, 31 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 10:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen H. Hughes

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

A non-notable subject that fails

WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and virtually no coverage in said sources at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

KEEP There's a move afoot to delete many of the lesser Latter-day Saint leadership, which doesn't bother me too much, but it would be a mistake to delete Hughes. Prior to her work for the Church, she was a significant leader in education. Perhaps that section of the article needs to be built up more, but it's not a matter of insufficient resources being available. Thmazing (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is what's needed to qualify notability. Said necessary sources do not appear to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should not be deleted. If we can not find enough sources to justify a stand alone article we should merge it with the article on her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails
WP:GNG, there is no evidence the subject is noteworthy or of public interest and no sources to illustrate why she should be in an encyclopaedia. If there is a list of counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then her name should be recorded on it, but she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page to herself. Pupsbunch (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 31 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 09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. Meurs

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

Non-notable subject, whereby the article qualifies for deletion per

WP:BLP1E, the subject being notable only for one event. The only significant coverage about the subject is concerning his leaving a position of employment (e.g. article). Other coverage is limited to fleeting passing mentions, name checks and quotations, none of which confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is not notable.Lebsci (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Being appointed to a "high" level position in a religion does not confer notability. Valeince (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure The article currently is poorly sourced and a ProQuest search reveals several reliable, substantial newspaper articles, so on that basis I think there are sufficient reliable sources to justify an entry. However, it does seem that notability is limited to the subject previously being a spokesman for a mining company and presently being a spokesman for the Mormon Church, and that may fail
WP:BLP1E. The entry does presently feel promotional.Cabrils (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep To start with Meurs is not a "spokesman" for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he is a leader of the Church. The multiple indepdent articles covering his leaving his previous employer show he was a significant figure there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough sustained coverage from secondary sources to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Kudo

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

Non-notable music producer. Google search finds that he exists, and is publicized on social media, and finds this article. Google search does not find any independent coverage. The only reference in this article makes a passing mention of the subject. Notability is not inherited from working with anyone who has an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete a non-notable music businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Zeller

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

Fails

WP:NPOL nor is he notable as a military member. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails
WP:NPOL per nom. Skirts89 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but there's no strong evidence here that he could be considered to have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy — the sources which exist outside of the campaign context are all either video clips of him speaking about something other than himself, or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other people. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's set aside the losing candidacy and look at the career. He founded and is CEO of
WP:SIGCOV a decade ago for helping the translator he worked with in Afghanistan get a visa to come to America: featured profiles on CNN and in People Magazine. He continues to be interviewed and to have speaking gigs related to No One Left Behind, but the SIGCOV peaked long enough ago that it requires the use of new archive searches. (I added some to page.) Bio details can be expanded from the election coverage, which is reliable even though it does not contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:HEY, I sourced it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete unelected candidate for public office. His other actions do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of his achievements aside, the fact is that there has been
WP:SIGCOV of those achievements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Revisting because, well, when I am in a minority at AfD I like to step back and double check my opinion. So I went to the page asking myself, does this really pass the bar at
WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing this as delete would be defensible at this point, but I'd like to give people another week to evaluate the improvements made to the article during the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 31 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 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie D. Parkin

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet

WP:BEFORE searches have provided no significant coverage at all. Furthermore, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails
WP:GNG, there is no evidence the subject is noteworthy or of public interest and no sources to illustrate why she should be in an encyclopaedia. If there is a list of general presidents of the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then her name should be recorded on it, but she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page to herself. Pupsbunch (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 31 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 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald Rabbinical family

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

No claim to any notability and no evidence of any notability. The single source is a self made family tree with the same reliability as a blog. Fails

WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or
talk) 22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical project. Notability difficult to verify.
talk) 22:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - possibly quite notable, though I would like to see sources discussing them as a set (many of the individuals, also those redlinked, are clearly notable and have entries in other wikis). At the very least, some of the content should be merged to Greenwald (currently missing some of our own blue links, and a comment there on the rabbai line is due - to help our poor readers when they see a rebe Greenwald (which may refer to quite a few different rebes)).Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Icewhiz in the following sense that although the family tree is itself not notable, and is already partly present in Moshe Greenwald, those names that have an article should be merged into Greenwald. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability of the family as a whole. Useful content besides the family tree itself can be merged. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 31 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 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy F. Evans

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

A non-notable subject that fails

WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing absolutely no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and hardly any coverage at all. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. At a minimum it should be merged with the article on her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails
WP:GNG, there is no evidence she is noteworthy or of public interest and the three sources cited - of her her website obituary and church newsletters - do not support he notion she warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia Pupsbunch (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage independent of the religious organizations in which she served. Appropriately sourced content from this article (or anywhere else) having bearing on her husband's biography can be included in his article, but a merge would be inappropriate. As a side note, her husband's article has been tagged as potentially failing
WP:BIO, so this may soon be moot. Lagrange 613 10:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Darts Club

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

Inconsequential university club. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. Not even meriting a passing mention at

WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I click it, the club website link http://oudcdarts.weebly.com/ goes to a page that starts "Welcome to the OUDC website, home of the Oxford Uni darts league and cuppers." That's the link in the infobox and the external links section. What link are you clicking, Just Chilling? --Qwfp (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it does! But if you click Reference 1 it goes to the dance club site! Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of students play darts. The only vaguely notable aspect is the "varsity match" aspect but I've been unable to find anything significant. Nigej (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete G5/g11

(non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Fatemeh TaghiNejad

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

No indication of notability per

WP:NACTOR. ... discospinster _talk 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable in Persian or English.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By searching google news, i found blank page (0 sources) [25] for which she fails
WP:NACTOR. It would be deleted under A7 category, but for now lets wait for the decision. 77.243.187.60 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Fraud in the debate

IPs should not participate (Bypassing the law Wikipedia) Y Hotan1990 (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

anybody can participate in afds, indeed, there are a number of experienced editors who go by their ip address whose input to afds and elsewhere are especially welcome. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have just reinstated the afd notice at the top of the article, it was removed by the article creator, the above editor (Hotan1990). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There also seems to be some socking going on to enhance this individual's film credits by adding unsourced information to related film articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. --SalmanZ (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notabilty guidelines. IPs are people too, and can participate in any discussion they wish to. I still think we should require all editing to be done while signed in, but my views have not yet been adopted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 of a globally locked sock (Zahra_1369) and salt for good measure. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. If the nominator is not satisfied with the posted sources, feel free to renominate again after few weeks or months.

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Rosco McGlashan

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

While the article has some sources, it appears to lack any notable coverage, with any notable coverage being primarily focused on the car instead of the individual in question.

As such, I am hoping to receive outside input on the notability of this article, and also air the possibility of rather than an outright delete the relevant content is transferred to an article about the various "Aussie Invader's"

talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment This is a
WP:COATRACK article, about the Aussie Invader vehicles and their land speed reccord attempts. Some content has been pasted from this non-free source, which needs clearing out or rewriting. I would need more time to assess whether either subject actually meets our notability requirements. Nick Moyes (talk
)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form: There's enough sigcov for an article (eg: [26][27][28][29]). If you are stuck with one article, then one way or another you'll end up with something that may look a little coatrack. His notability is in leading the building and racing of vehicles, and stories about the vehicles focus on him in that role. Consider a counterfactual: What if his vehicles all had totally different names, and there were no common company? Conversely, his go-kart record and
OAM and perhaps other things are noteworthy, so if the article pivots to one on the vehicles, then a chunk of biographical information should be included. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:38, 31 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 09:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thundersword

)

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

Does not meet

WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of two articles, and the character appears seven times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: T or List of Iron Man enemies. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - character lists are meant to be a central location for short summaries of characters who are important in a fiction, but not outside of it. This character has two incoming links from non-list articles, so he's clearly not that notable in the Marvel universe. Neither of those articles provide enough information to make a redirect practical. Nothing would be lost by deleting the information. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Argento Surfer, whose opinion I agree with. Belongs in Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 31 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 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carole M. Stephens

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

A non-notable subject that qualifies for deletion per

WP:BEFORE searches, remaining coverage in independent, reliable sources is is limited to routine announcements about the subject's becoming a general board member of the Relief Society of the LDS church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 31 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 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G-Fan

G-Fan (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)

Nominating at this for deletion to due to a lack of sources that show its notability here on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would also call for this article to be
salted due to repeatedly being recreated after two other deletions in the past. There is just nothing to justify an article for it. GamerPro64 04:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless those wishing to keep it can add appropriate sources within the remaining time frame. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Kaczorowski

Mick Kaczorowski (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 a strong question as to the subject's notability. While he has won some awards from a notable institution, these are shared and so I do not believe satisfy the requirements of
WP:ANYBIO
.
He has been involved in the creation of several relatively notable works, but I do not believe they hold sufficient notability to meet the requirements under
WP:DIRECTOR
.
If he does not meet the criteria for notability under any of those then I do not believe he meets the criteria under
WP:GNG. None of the references provided in the article are suitable for establishing this (IMDB, TVGuide), and some are not suitable at all (docuWiki). A search does bring up a few articles mentioning him, but either he is the author [30] or is only mentioned in passing by an article discussing his current project. [31][32][33][34]

However, given the combined awards, programs and passing coverage, I am not certain he doesn't meet the required standards of
talk) 12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'd say he pretty clearly meets #3 and #4 of
WP:DIRECTOR (though I would have used the Filmmaker tag). He's played a major role in co-creating a body of work: Meerkat Manor alone qualifies him for that, let alone everything else. And he's won two Emmys for his work as a filmmaker.^[2] The article may not be great, but it seems to me that this is a clear case where editing would be preferable to deletion. ManicSpider (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet dealing

Sheet dealing (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 an expert in publishing, but this article exclusively cites the website of
WP:SOAPBOXING. I have removed similar content from the Malcolm article. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep~~ Fix and Merge Important concept and publishing article, which includes case law. Needs more sources, and better links. Meets
WP:GNG
. Ideally, references need to be broadened out. But this is a ground for improvement, not a ground for deletion.

That being said, I think that the use of the block quotes (which now stand out, now that I reformatted them as
WP:Copyright violation
that needs to be remedied.

Additionally, when I used ref fill to tweak the citations, it became apparent that all but one are from the same source! This needs to be fixed. New sources are a must.

Here are four candidates for merger:

Advance against royalties

Author

Publishing

Royalty payment

If that happens, then some of the concerns that have prompted this AFD can be alleviated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR, so someone will need to put a lot of effort into this. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Endymion.12 Message received. I am busy in the real world, which intrudes on my Wikidiction, and time crunched. I can't get to this for a week at least. Maybe not even then. My initial boffing around came up zero. If we tried it from a legal angle, reading the cases and then Sherdardizing them (oops, I am showing my age), we might be able to find something. We could also try to backtrack from the sources we already have. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reformatted the existing references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it go by a different name? We have Publishing#Book_publishing but no article dedicated to just publishing of books which could hold all of this in its controversy section. Dream Focus 17:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and decide what can be merged somewhere and where to stick it. No sense deleting valid information we can put somewhere. Dream Focus 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of HD DVD devices

List of HD DVD devices (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)

Outdated list of products - a lot of content already removed including prices in US dollars (from 2007!). HD DVD technology may be historic but to list every single product would violate
WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as well as this list essentially being a product catalogue. Article stems on from recently deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination) Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per recent AfD on a similar article as linked by the nominator; no evidence of notability Spiderone 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per talkpage request as the discussion was short. Giving it more time to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering to not delete this content. Listings including prices was very useful and not "indiscriminate" but very particularly useful as a tool to help immediately identity what products were high-end and harder to find and which products were common. Perhaps this should have been pointed out in the article and the prices more clearly linked to sources and the reason for their inclusion made clear in the article.
Honestly I think fighting for the article's retension and trying to explain why the topic is notable seems like a lost cause. Sooner or later new editors will arbitrarily decide old tech isn't their thing and just delete the articles. Sooner or later it's trashed again so why bother? The whole wikipedia system seems run as a tyranny of arbitrary hierarchical editorial control. This article list is very small considering the short life of the technology so it's not like a list that continually grows. If the most popular models were only listed as examples back in the main article it would bloat that article which is possibly why it became its own article. The list article could definitely be improved by dividing it up into Popular, and Less Popular if we can find support links (besides the price reference implications) but again, why do the work if it's just going to be trashed on a editor's feel of what they think is notable that day? It seems odd that natural science articles get a pass for listing genus and species, e.g. home page linked article ^[3] but if the subject is retro-tech suddenly an editor can easily decide "not notable" - yet more people dealt with the technologies on this list over this Wader bird. Sure the bird understanding is probably more important long-term but if the issue is "notability" then short lists of older tech, demonstrating exact nature of moderate breadth of different manufacturers supporting the tech, the length -- i.e. lifespan of the particular tech (year introduced), rarity (pricing) of the tech, etc. all seem notable. But not notable to people who don't care about the particular technology. Too bad we aren't bird lovers, where some lists are okay ^[4] Best wishes Dcsutherland (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bernstein, Barbara. "Lunden De'Leon". Banza magazine. wordpress.

^ https://www.emmys.com/bios/mick-kaczorowski

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wader

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I find the list very poorly referenced, and of the few references present many are non-
indiscriminate unsourced data. --Pontificalibus 09:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per USER:Pontificalibus. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 31 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_31&oldid=1142224655"

[1] Bernstein, Barbara. "Lunden De'Leon". Banza magazine. wordpress.

[2] ttps://www.emmys.com/bios/mick-kaczorowski

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wader

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]