Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 12

(non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

Splash Island (Biñan)

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

insufficient reliable sources for this water park--travel guides only. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is
not even a second-tier tourist site in the Philippines. Bearian (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Appears to be an A7 to me - no real claim of why it's significant (I don't think 6,000 visitors qualifies as a credible claim of significance for a waterpark). Red Phoenix ^talk 20:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Isabirye

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

Zero independent sources about the subject of this biography. Peacock (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject is not notable Ceethekreator (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable Alex-h (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no
prove this person exists. It's a pseudonym for all we know. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Belliard

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

inadequate theird party sources for notability of this personal trainer/ fitness model. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and inadequate sourcing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- a CV of an Instagram personality with no independent references.
π, ν) 20:40, 19 July 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

My Best Christmas

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

Christmas compilation album that didn’t chart and has not achieved any notable coverage, nor has any coverage been added in 12 years. Safe to say it never will and this non-notable album should be deleted or redirected to Amy Grant discography Toa Nidhiki05 19:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any coverage upon further examination. I could understand a possible redirect as it could be a possible search term, but the complete lack of concrete coverage leads me more to a delete vote instead. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amy Grant discography. I think it might be a viable search term for Amy Grant fans so redirecting could be useful. But the album itself was a budget compilation that received no notice and made no impact when it was released. The only sources found are the typical retail/streaming directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, not independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galaga X6

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

Page fails to meet notability guidelines. The only source present doesn't look to be reliable. Namcokid47 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Galaga, as the name rings very familiar.~~ the game is an offshoot of Galaga as this and the original are spaceship shooters. Nower603 (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - No coverage whatsoever from any reliable sources to establish notability (a Google search on it only yielded shopping listings). --letcreate123 (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. fails
WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:GNG due to not having enough reliable sources and significant coverage. Blake44 (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plantation explosion

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable event. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Plantdrew (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this event had no lasting impact. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Clarityfiend and
WP:NOTNEWS. Not sure what caused the explosion, but there is a List of pipeline accidents in the United States in 2019 where mention of this could potentially be made. StonyBrook (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, is not encyclopedic Alex-h (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolve Artist

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

Promotional. References are not independent of the online art school.

π, ν) 17:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

π, ν) 17:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was Keep. The subject should be rewritten, but there is a clear consensus to keep this article. Nower603 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Interested editors may want to check the related page, Old Holland for promotion as well. Evolve isn't notable, but Old Holland likely is. They make nice paint, but the article reads like it's been written by their marketing department. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References not independent of the online art school are not longer present. Ptt1234 12:47, 12 July 2019 (PT)

Delete Despite recent edits, Vex's points remain valid. This company has no significant coverage of independent, reliable sources.--
🕊 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Sources do not meet
WP:ORGCRIT (both those provided and the search online I conducted). --CNMall41 (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Long

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Little more than a laundry list of nn videos. Survived AFD a decade ago based on porn industry awards, which are no longer alone sufficient to demonstrate notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's assessment is correct. In addition, my own independent searches for RS coverage came up empty. Fails
WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely lacking significant coverage in actual independent reliable sources. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 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.

2nd Regiment New York Volunteer Cavalry

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

Copied from a public-domain source. Clearly not an encyclopedia article in its current form (

π, ν) 16:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

If someone could format this, copy edit this, and add a couple additional sources, we'd have an article. Maybe draftify? SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with the deletion proposal, but want to note there's probably a way to build an article around this topic. Read as a "don't keep in current form." ~~SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Keep article has been much improved. SportingFlyer T·C 21:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On reading through the article I can't see anything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Of course it should have a lead section and internal links and otherwise have stylistic changes made to it, but I really can't see any reason why those improvements can't be made without deleting this, and why the current article doesn't serve readers better than nothing, which is what we would have if this was deleted.
Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, but I disagree with this "if in doubt, draftify" idea that seems to have taken hold here. If we draftify it then nobody will see it and improve it, and it will be deleted under

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep - Don´t you think you´re a little overzealous with your copyright-paranoia? The article has been created just yesterday, give the creator some time to work. Seriously. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable regiment per
WP:MILUNIT with substantial combat service. Kges1901 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keep Notable per
WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in Singapore

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

π, ν) 16:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:OR given the distance. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I think it's possible to have a "2022 in X" article if there's a range of notable scheduled events, but none of the routine infrastructure development notices in the article seem to me to justify its existence. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:07, 12 July 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 close . This AfD is a duplicate and a misspelling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PolicyGenius. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyGenius

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

The references do not substantiate that the business is notable Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Nor are the founders (who are given considerable weight as a reason for the article), notable. The article's content would apply to any business. 1) We sell stuff. 2) Some people started the business. 3) We got funding. 4) And, BTW, here's a link to our consumer website where the single-focus of the home page is to promote the stuff we sell. Wikipedia is not meant to be a Yellow Pages listing for run-of-the-mill business entities.

The author has admitted conflict of interest (he is employed by the company as a media marketer). At best the page is blatant corporate advertising to gain SEO.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 16:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Unanimity that the subject fails notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco D'Macho

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

Just another porn-related BLP without any independent reliable sourcing or any legitimate assertion of notability. Little more than a laundry list of NN videos and a pair of award citations that wouldn't even have satisfied the last version of PORNBIO. Also a licensing violation, since the base version of the text was an improper cut-and-paste userfication that didn't preserve the history of the originally deleted article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He lacks significant coverage in truly independent reliable sources and is therefore not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails
WP:ANYBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

So if it's not Disney, it's not notable? There's a whole world of specialist cinema,

Searching for Skylab

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

Non-notable film, sources don't indicate notability (non-professional review and advert for opening) BOVINEBOY2008 13:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this 2019 documentary is a notable addition to the space documentary collection, is even now well sourced per its topic, seems to have had a NASA and astronaut involved opening, and is now one of 28 films listed at Category:Documentary films about the space program of the United States. Skylab is one of the major NASA programs of the 1970s, and to finally have a full documentary on this program of course fits within encyclopedic notability standards. Why not just put a citesneeded tag on it rather than go for a full deletion? I really dislike coming to these deletion discussions for things which are obvious notable keepers and just need a source or three. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like a worst-case outcome would be a merge to Skylab#Documentaries, where it is already mentioned. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have added the request to the WikiProject Spaceflight talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should a "non-professional" review be excluded? When did policy change WP:RS like this? Also, el Reg is professional journalism, even if not usually reviewing films. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As a film, it needs to be review by professional reviews to be considered notable, per
  WP:NF guidelines. BOVINEBOY2008 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - That's a guideline, not a hard rule. There are plenty of completely un-notable films which have been professionally reviewed, and plenty of notable documentaries which didn't get a professional review in the first three months after their release. And, for all I know, it has been professionally reviewed. You're talking about a lack of a reference to such a review, not the non-existence of such a review. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where (even in
WP:NF) does it require reviews to be professional in order to convey notability? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NFO: The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. BOVINEBOY2008 20:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

" widely distributed"

arthouse for one, almost any documentary for another (this is a documentary) which will never achieve the distribution of Toy Story, but are certainly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep I think it's sufficiently notable. If it isn't, there are a whole lot of article on less notable films which ought to go. I'm moderately annoyed that the director himself has made some edits, but they seem to be innocuous. Fcrary (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I expanded the article with what sources I could find using a search engine, however there isn't much. Some of these sources were not independent (i.e. a primary source from a museum which screened a preview and a review/summary from the
wp:GNG.--Cincotta1 (talk) 23:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Soft Keep I've read and searched about this and I think it can do better in future, the sources are not that strong but good. It should be considered that the subject is very specific so for that the sources are good. As this is new a new documentary in future it can bring more sources and coverage, hopefully, Best. - Blake44 (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable and well sourced. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:56, 19 July 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 John A. Stormer. Clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None Dare Call It Treason

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Recommend redirect to John Harington (writer). FOARP (talk) 10:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm neutral about deletion, but this article is not a disambiguation page. If it survives AfD it should have the disambiguation tag removed, and an appropriate category applied. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted a redirect, you should have just done it. It would have taken 2 fewer edits than an AFD nomination. Redirects do not involve the administrator deletion tool in any way, and any editor, even ones without accounts, can enact them. And Talk:None Dare Call It Treason, and possibly Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, is for the inevitable subsequent hashing out of which of the now two targets should be the redirect. AFD is for deletion as the name says. Uncle G (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John A. Stormer, since "none dare call it treason" is not covered on John Harington (writer) -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until somebody either writes an article on the very notable book, which this page could be merged into, or until this page is expanded into an article on that book, with this tect used in a section on the title and its source/origin. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John A. Stormer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and
WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite two relists this has been a low traffic AfD. Small majority for the 'keep's but their arguments are balanced by the other reservations. I am not seeing a consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Dialogue and ADR for Feature Film

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

This is not notable as a standalone award and I would propose redirecting it to Motion_Picture_Sound_Editors#Golden_Reel_Awards which is what the entry on the DAB redirects to as well as the awards are not actually independently notable, however the creator has contested this so i'm left with AFD.

So, delete and redirect. I'm also bundling

Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film with it.Praxidicae (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For awards that are presented in multiple categories rather than just one, keeping all of the information about every category in a single merged article about the overall program would make that article far too long to be useful. So standard practice for multi-category film, television, music or literary awards programs has always been that as long as the overall program is notable, each category should have its own standalone article regardless of any quibbles about whether that individual category is "independently" notable separately from the overall program, simply because that's the user-friendliest way to package the overall program. Try, for example, to imagine if none of the
Academy Award categories had their own standalone articles, but instead all of the winners and nominees in every category were simply crammed into one loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong omnibus article about the Academy Awards themselves: this would not be user-friendly or helpful to either readers or editors, so we split the information up for size management purposes, regardless of what anybody thinks about the standalone notability of any individual category. It's true that not every award category presented by the Motion Picture Sound Editors actually has its own standalone article yet, but that's precisely because getting them started is a new project being taken on by an editor within the past two weeks. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comments: I have an issue with 51 (fast count) out of 88 references, being
Golden Reel Award for Outstanding Achievement in Sound Editing - Musical for Feature Film has 5 references that are all IMDb. Surely we can do better so I hope there are plans to address with "the new editor" because if not there are all-around notability issues. Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If publications like the Los Angeles Times and Variety announce the results, the awards are notable enough. The quality of some of the sources is not a valid reason to delete the list. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements alone are not coverage. We do not need an article for every category and subcat when we don't even have an actual article on the awards and even if we did, it's not a directory. There is no sustained coverage of this. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 16 July 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:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

Carson Hocevar

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

Only sources cited are press releases and routine stats directory-esqe pages, leaving a total absence of

WP:NMOTORSPORT #1. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – actually he does satisfy
WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria 1: Has driven at least 1 race in a fully professional series. Hocevar has raced in ARCA Menards Series which according to the article is a professional series. SSSB (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

According to the article it is, but the longstanding viewpoint of WikiProject NASCAR is that ARCA is not fully professional for a series that satisfies #1. If you would like to reevaluate that viewpoint, I would be open to starting a discussion at the WikiProject. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If its a long standing viewpoint I'll support delete below. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the response to my comment (above), if this series isn't considered proffesional by
the relevent WikiProject then he fails the notabillity criteria. SSSB (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cookham Reach Sailing Club

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

The article is promotional and reads like an advertisement. As for sourcing, it is mostly Cookham itself. News searches find local articles. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per
WP:NOTADVERTISING. The only reference is the subject's website, and the article does not read like an encyclopedic entry. --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 15:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per
WP:NOTADVERTISING. I read other Wiki entries for sailing clubs before creating this page and structured it in the same way, providing the same sort of information. When the article is about a club it is hard not to write an article about the club without including "advertising" information, because that is the nature of the organisation - information about it provides detail about what it does. Reference - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ship_Club. If you believe I need to change the content format, please can you suggest what I change? I will add more external references to the club as suggested. ...James

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of whether or not the article has promotional issues, the club itself does not appear to be notable. Of the sources present in the article already, the first five are unusable to establish notability - they're either from the club's own website, or simply directory entries for locations and/or events. The sixth one is more substantial, but does not actually talk about the club itself at all - it is entirely about an event that took place there. I did some searches for more sources, and was unable to find anything substantial. The few results that come up are either just passing mentions, from extremely local sources, or, most often, a combination of both. Based on these results, this club does not appear to pass the
WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Per
talk) 23:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 13:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visible balance

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

This article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. It also came to AfD where the consensus was to delete. Apparently that didn’t happen. It’s still here, still unsourced, and it’s no clearer than before who Cedric Vute is. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply