Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 25

• Procedural keep Your rationale does not address any policies about why you would like this deleted, outside the fact
  chatter) 20:16, 25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Francis Lewis

Norman Francis Lewis (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)

Puffery from a Who's Who article. No reliable sourcing.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

π, ν) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the sources currently listed in the article is reliable, independent, and with in-depth coverage of the subject. The best I could find with this which is at least a published book with two sentences about him, but it's not multiple sources, not in-depth, and I suspect not adequately reliable (because more interested in repeating puffed-up stories about Goans than in verifying their accuracy). His Google scholar citation record certainly does not suggest notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It claims that Lewis "narrowly missed the Nobel prize" for ... describing one species of bacterium in the genus
  reliable sources to write an article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the "narrowly missed the nobel prize" line borders on making this article almost a hoax. Nothing suggests he comes close to passing notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:V. The only reliable source, the Times of India, accepts paid obituaries from anybody, not just licensed undertakers, as looks like this case. Bearian (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Highest citation I found in Google scholar was 12, next was 4. Doesn't seem enough to pass
  WP:NPROF and the coverage also doesn't meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment.The content of this article is based on its
  (T) 07:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yes I saw that and also checked it out before nominating but it is almost totally unsourced. As a French speaker I was able to analyse the French language sources in a before search with they did not amount to much. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as Allmusic shows two album releases on EMI which therefore passes
  WP:NMUSIC criteria 5 but reliable sources significant coverage is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Probably notable singer from france. Since I have added references, there are now references in the article. I am of the opinion that passes
  (T) 09:43, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sutliff & Stout, Injury & Accident Law Firm

Sutliff & Stout, Injury & Accident Law Firm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article about a non-notable law firm. References are trivial, promotional, or press releases.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

π, ν) 16:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

π, ν) 16:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as
  WP:VANISPAM. Non-notable, no apparent coverage in unaffiliated sources. The references other than those originating with the firm itself are all about other subjects that touch only tangentially on the firm. TJRC (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as
  likely paid-for spam created in violation of the Terms of Use. I have blocked the author for this. MER-C 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Unknown company. Docor726 (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC) — Docor726(talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. per
  WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No indication of notability. Sourced to trivial coverage and press releases. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails
  WP:NORG due to sources being press releases and passing mentions. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:37, 27 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. Sandstein 13:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Hyun-choul

Shin Hyun-choul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines for biographies. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 15:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 15:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article does need references, but assuming all the claims are true, he is in multiple museum collections and meets
  talk) 16:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The article's overly promotional tone and statements like: "...Shin has withstood all the hardships with pride, and his accomplishments certainly entitles him for such pride and confidence" and "I would like to appraise that his works allow us to discover the energy a cup of tea can bring into our lives..." mades one wonder if the IP and the page creator (both SPA's) may have COI? Searches on Google Books, news, newspapers, Korean wikipedia, JSTOR and Google searches turned up nothing but a culinary wordpress-blog post, a press release from a group show of ten artists that lists his name only, and then this: a review of a group show at the V&A in London, but unfortunately it only devotes half a sentence to him. If he is in fact in the permanent collections of the listed museums, then he would pass notability criteria, however there are no RS backing up those claims. Netherzone (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the V&A review is about a show that he is not in-- it just references his work. I am starting to wonder if the reputation is entirely concocted. A Korean-language speaking editor would be helpful here.

talk) 05:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This morning I searched every institution on the list of collections and came up with zero. I used variations of his name: Shin Hyun-choul, Hyun Choul Shin, as well as a translation into Korean characters. Also searched Western museums with major Asian collections such as Smithsonian, Asian Art Museum in San Francisco, Asia Society Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum and even the V&A collection: zero. I am wondering if he may be a commercial potter who sells work in the museum stores of the institutions listed, rather than being in these permanent collections? The group shows are not convincing: Yokohama Trade Fair, a Tea Culture Conference, a Planning Forum, Ceramic Pottery Contest, Pottery Biennale Workshop, New Design Fair, etc. A few sound more credible like the Tokyo Modern Art Center Invitational Exhibition, but no sources. Will keep looking, tho. Yes it would be great if a Korean language fluent editor could help out with this. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on the above discussion, I am going to say delete. Extensive searches by
  talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete - I did find this PDF: Craftsmaster of Kwangju Royal family CeramicsShin Hyun Choul Ceramic Art but it is a product of his website: shcceramic.com, and therefore not a RS and does not confirm notability. I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but there does not seem to be independent reviews or citations. I'm hoping that an Asian art expert jumps in and finds some sources in Korean, Japanese or Chinese as per his list of unsourced exhibitions and collections (and I would change my !vote if that materializes.)Netherzone (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found this tourist blog that explains that "Kwangju Royal Family Ceramics" is apparently a product line, rather than a title. I think you may be right that he operates a company and sells within museum gift shows, as that is what he is described doing in the blog article. Delete does seem like the way to go here, as we cannot verify even a single claim.

talk) 18:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

The Gyeongju Art Centre is a performing arts center (that may have a gallery inside, or the lobby space may be used thusly) - it is not the Gyeongju Art Museum, which is a different institution. Both have prestige (I had heard about them when I used to teach in Seoul, but never ended up making the trip there.) If this show was a substantial, curated solo show with a catalog and reviews it might hold some weight. I really wish I could find something on this artist, but nothing, inc. the blog ThatMontrealIP posted above, makes the cut. Netherzone (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the blog does not help at all-- it was just meant to prove the show. I don't think the show in itself proves much. We would need four times that, with reviews.

talk) 02:24, 28 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.

Martyns Mannah

Martyns Mannah (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)

{{u|waddie96}} {talk} 15:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 15:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Passes NPOLITICIAN as a legislator occupying sub-national elective position. But the article needs references and cleanup for it to be kept. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article definitely needs some actual referencing, but the subject has verifiably served in a Nigerian state legislature, which passes
  WP:NPOL #1. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 27 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.

Franklin Clinton (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)

Was a redirect, then moved to draft, now moved back to mainspace. No real world notability, should be a redirect, but since some editors are insistent at creating articles for every fictional character ever written, here we are. This character's greatest claim to fame is they are the "sixth greatest Grand Theft Auto protagonist of all time". Not the greatest character, not the second greatest character. Not even the sixth greatest character, but the sixth greatest protagonist. Current sourcing is all primary, or about the actor who does the voice over, or brief blurbs. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage of real world notability needed to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - No independent notability, though it is a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton per Clarityfiend._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Grand Theft Auto V characters#Franklin Clinton when the only possible legitimate source outside of voice actor commentary with decent coverage is Geek.com, and I'm not sure how trustworthy that site is. Regardless, one good independent piece on its own is simply not enough for a standalone article when WP:GNG requires multiple of such nature, but I agree with Sergecross73 that this is still a viable search term. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:57, 30 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.

Bull Demon King

Bull Demon King (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)

Character with no real world notability. IP editor obscenely reverted the redirect. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Burmese pokemon (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Burmese pokemon (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Burmese pokemon^talk 19:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has redirected since 2011. 9 year later I've created. The character appeared as major role in the Monkey King and Chinese Odyssey films, and also a major supervillain in the 2014 hit film The Monkey King and so covered in numerous works, see per article. Burmese pokemon (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Let's keep in mind that Journey to the West is one of the great works of world literature, and that individual characters (List of Journey to the West characters) may well be notable enough to sustain separate articles. That's certainly so for the main protagonists. It's a little more questionable for the vast roster of antagonists and side characters. I think a case could be made here that the character is prominent enough to merit an article; but I wouldn't object much if it got merged (back) to a list entry either. Borderline. - See also Baigujing and Red Boy, which are in the same bracket. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Journey to the West is not a random work of fiction; it is one of the most significant works of Chinese literature and it's perfectly reasonable that characters in it have pages of their own. The sources could be improved: here are two suggestions for scholarly articles in English: [3] [4], and a book which describes the capture of Niu Mowang as "one of the best known" of the book's stories. As for the vast roster, well, have you seen e.g. Template:Odyssey navbox? Yes, Other Stuff Exists, but Chinese works are as deserving of complete coverage as Western ones, and there shouldn't be a separate prominence threshold imposed on them beyond detailed coverage in reliable sources. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Should we delete
  Pokemon just because it is a fictional character ? For Bull Demon King, it had quite a lot of literature to explore / research the subject. such as "《西游记》中牛魔王形象的文化解析". Matthew hk (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The character on its own satisfies the
  WP:GNG. IP edits do not mean the article is not notable. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per Elmidae (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the major characters in Journey to the West. Esiymbro (talk) 01:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bull Demon King is one of the symbolic character of this reputed work. viz ✦ 05:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nizolan. — Hunter Kahn 06:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- per Nizolan. — MA Javadi (talk) 15:17, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Pages Cares

Kids' Pages Cares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent, reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a charity, but I cannot source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 28 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 merge to Constitution Party (United States). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Oregon

Constitution Party of Oregon (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)

Former affiliate of the national Constitution party that has never elected any candidate to any office and does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 13:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge as there's an obvious
  WP:ATD – merger into the article about the national organisation. Andrew D. (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to the national organization Lightburst (talk) 02:14, 29 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.

Tax Cut Now Party

Tax Cut Now Party (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)

Cites no sources and elected no candidates to any office. Does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge this tricky political trick to 1994 New York gubernatorial election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now has sources, and was a part of the successful Pataki campaign. JASpencer (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yes, but sources are so thin and it was so short-lived that MERGE and REDIRECT page title to the campaign makes more sense.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The party ran a successful campaign. Also, a search on WPREF [5], scholar [6], and books [7] prove that the article satisfies the
  WP:GNG. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Republican Party of New York or to George Pataki. Just look at the sources you mention - in their tiny, trivial coverage of this party (which fails our notability guidelines, as they require comprehensive coverage), all of them will say this. This “party” is not independently notable of Pataki or the GOP. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  WP:GNG and has made an impact on New York politics. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The two academic ones I cannot read. They do not mention the party in previews and you have not given any quotations to judge on. So out of what we can see, all mentions of this “party” are trivial, and all of them mention it in the context of being a Republican front group for the 1994 Pataki campaign. As
  Republican Party of New York. This “party” clearly is not independently notable of those. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Lets see how this AFD turns out. I stand by my opinion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's notable, e.g. Multiparty Politics in America. Andrew D. (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See above. This is a trivial mention which does not qualify as substantial, non-trivial coverage and in fact corroborates the idea of merging with another article, as it is noted as a GOP front group. Toa Nidhiki05 14:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• coverage is of this party as a sort of political trick; by forming a legal "party" that qualified for a ballot line the
  WP:SIGCOV of the party, only SIGCOV is of it as a ballot line. Making a merge appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The source Multiparty Politics in America provides a variety of detailed facts about the topic and so passes
  WP:SIGCOV. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep - as the Freedom Party, it gained
  significant coverage back in the 1990s, fielded candidates, and had a following amongst moderate African-Americans for a time. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Do you have any evidence for this? Toa Nidhiki05 15:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I
  undue weight concerns. It's obvious that the party is best understood within the context of its creation, but until someone writes George Pataki 1994 New York gubernatorial campaign I see no reason to merge. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How would it be UNDUE to mention it on the New York GOP page? The entire history of this "party" can be summed up in like one paragraph: it was a ballot line created in 1994 to help Pataki's campaign, was used for that election, was run as a puppet organization by the state Republican party, and folded in 1998 when Pataki declined to use it. There is nothing notable about this "party" outside of its connection to the Pataki campaign. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 31 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 18:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Ramsey

Jade Ramsey (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)

Previously soft deleted after an

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No references. Delete unless some found/added. RJFJR (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Since the last AFD this and this have been created however I wouldn't consider #1 to be a reliable source and the second is a review for a film which is great and certainly can be used however IMHO this one source should not be a justification for keeping the article, Bar these 2 there's still nothing else out there, fails TOOSOON, NACTOR #2 and #3 and GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions notability requirement for performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 28 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 Dell laptops. Tone 17:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dell 320SLi

Dell 320SLi (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)

Only claim to fame is that it had faulty components that led to recall. I cannot find any logical place to merge the content, which does have notability. However being a stub I question whether the orphaned article should remain. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’ve wondered about putting this article up for deletion several times. As you say it does only seem notable for its recall, but the reason I left it is that the recall does seem to have attracted a lot of coverage in the press. Mccapra (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The useful merge/redirect target would be Dell laptops or Dell laptop timelines which might make a more useful article. The content is mildly interesting but not for a standalone article.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just created a draft Draft:Dell laptops. I may or may not choose to develop it, and welcome if others did. It is not at this moment suitable for mainspace. But it would I think be a suitable merge target for Dell 320SLi.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Old computer, there are RS about it, no harm in keeping the article. Coverage 10 years after the event shows at least some marginal notability (well, infamy) of this product. I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 09:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's a laptop known solely for its recall. Even if there were any sources for it other than its heating problems, it's still the generic computer coverage that you would see from CNET or a computer magazine. –
  talk · contribs) 19:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]