Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 10 June 12 June >

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AVST

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

I can't find any notability here. Very promotional/"about us" in tone, plus a lot of non-notable company and product history. As far as I can tell, all of the sources are either 1) the company website, 2) press releases, 3) secondary reports of presentations/demos by the subject, or 4) investment profiles - none of which meet the criteria for significant independent coverage. There are a couple of secondary mentions of a report by "COMMFusion LLC," but both mentions were very promotional and didn't mention any other company besides AVST, which makes me a bit suspicious of the neutrality of the report. I spent some time looking for good sources on my own, no results.

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 23:31, 11 June 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 09:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Davis (singer)

AfDs for this article:
Karen Davis (singer) (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)

She does not qualify for notability, almost all of her "references" are from her work, record promoters, etc. TiberiasTiberias (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:25, 12 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesh Dhungana

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

Per

WP:GNG. Two legitimate sources mention the subject. THT and TKP. THT also mentions Mahesh Paudyal and the photo there was also taken by Mahesh. TKP article is a puff piece written by Mahesh Paudyal. Mahesh Paudyal also wrote another puff piece on him in his personal blog. It was part of a concerted effort to get each other on wikipedia. There was further evidence in edit history of Mahesh Paudyal's page which has since been deleted. This page was created and mostly contributed to by Nepalwrites and this is all that Nepalwrites ever contributed to. I have searched for this person with all search terms I could think of, in Roman as well as Devanagari script. Finally, a fallacious argument: Nor have I or anyone I know of ever heard of him (I should as a resident compatriot). Usedtobecool TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool TALK 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    Notability guidelines. Thehimalayantimes[2] is a one sentence passing mention. (The author very sloppily and unprofessionally duplicated that sentence, which would also raise obvious questions of the reputability and editorial oversight of the source.) Kathmandupost[3] has more substantial coverage, but it's apparently written by one of his university teachers raising significant independence/COI concerns. The other sources in the article are not independent. I also found myrepublica.nagariknetwork,[4] but it's a passing mention, I'm not sure of the quality of the source, and it doesn't help that it's a blatantly promotional event. I searched and was unable to find any other Independent Reliable sources to support Notability. I don't know if there is some local language spelling of his name, but if some one pings me with a another version of the name I'd be happy to search on that as well. Alsee (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Alsee. The sources in this article are all either useless or of sketchy value. It therefore fails
    WP:SPA COI issue with the creator means it should be uprooted from the encyclopedia so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:39, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mars

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails

WP:NBASEBALL. Now out of MiLB after signing w/ independent league team Pozzi.c (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:59, 11 June 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. Considering opinion on this one is more or less split, and people seem willing to look for more sources and expand or perhaps merge the article into a new one with an expanded scope, I am closing this as no consensus for now. If the article is not expanded or merged there will of course be no prejudice against a new AfD. Since there seems to be a disagreement about how to interpret

WP:NBUILDING, it might be a good idea to clarify the guideline. I note there is already a discussion underway on the talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Derwent House

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

No apparent notability, only one reference, unavailable and not specific to this house. Maybe the house that Willet lived in has some notability, I see no reason that this one does. Kevin McE (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes
    talk) 00:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a quite appalling miscitation of NBUILDING, which says nothing about listed buildings being notable by virtue of listing. "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Nothing to indicate that there is anything of historic, social, economic or architectural importance, and no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Kevin McE (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the first bullet point of the section which covers cultural and national heritage. I maintain that being a
talk) 20:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Is it really your contention that one house among many others of similar size on a suburban road constitutes a "Geographical Feature"? Kevin McE (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is.
talk) 22:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
And is it your contention that all the half million listed buildings in the UK are of national importance to the cultural heritage or history of that country and deserving of an article in Wikipedia? Kevin McE (talk) 07:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have always held that listed buildings do indeed meet the first criterion of
WP:GEOFEAT. They have clearly been "assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level". Are you seriously arguing that they haven't? And this certainly looks to me like "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
No, U.K. Grade II listed buildings have long been assumed NOT notable; there are too many of them and little info is available for most of them. In U.S., individually-NRHP-listed buildings are assumed notable because of usual documentation and general equivalence to Grade I and Grade II*, but not all the numerous/too-many buildings included in historic districts, equivalent to Grade II. --Doncram (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no, not true. There is usually a fair amount of info on the Historic England listing, for starters. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage, even the listing is rather brief. As opposed to Grade I and II* listings, which tend to indicate a building will satisfy
    WP:GNG, the lowest category of Grade II (representing 92.5% of listed buildings) does not. ----Pontificalibus 19:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:NBUILDING. There are similar honors given to countless millions of buildings across the world, very few of which have/deserve Wikipedia articles. It's just a typical building on this street, nothing uniquely special. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep": Per
    WP:NBUILDING that does offer a presumption of notability. There are approximately 344,080 grade II buildings and churches are listed separately. I didn't look to see how many of those would be from 1899 (Victorian era). This building is listed by the Department of Culture Media and Sport in England which is certainly a national cultural listing. This prestige is higher than the NRHP listing because the protection status is by statute and a building cannot be altered without permission. In this case the fact of being in the Chislehurst Conservation Area gives additional protection. that even includes trees, so is double protected. WP:NBUILDING does not differentiate between the classes of listed buildings
    as presented above but states:
Arguing a lack of notability because of a separation of protected status is ineffective and notability does not depend on the state of references in the article. I have not yet looked for sources as this listing is already working on day 7. I did see it appears to be a nursing home and not just a residence. Otr500 (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about U.S. NRHP vs. U.K. listed buildings. Both are covered in databases, so listing status can be established. But U.S. NRHP's generally have extensive nomination document plus accompanying photos, now mostly available on-line and hard-copy for others can be obtained by request to National Park Service. So NRHPs meet the Wikipedia requirement for notability based on existence of sourcing. For a listed building, no documentation can be assumed, as far as I understand.
I !voted "Delete" below, for now, but I would rather not "win" this decision. Otr500, could you post a link to that nursing home mention or anything else? Maybe this can be saved by adding some sources for the existing statements in the article and/or for any new statements that can be added. --Doncram (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is the exact location of this house, i.e. coordinates? Can it be seen in Google Streetview or otherwise? A photo sometimes helps settle an AFD. This one is architect-designed, might be impressive or it may seem no more significant than its neighbors.
There is a different(?) Derwent House in Bromley on St. Georges Rd. which sold in 2019 per this. However This is google maps view of difference between Camden Park Rd. and St. Georges Rd.; they appear not to intersect. --Doncram (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the one in the middle of the screen, between Bonchester Close and the house with the swimming pool. No Street View, unfortunately, but it looks pretty large and impressive. Note that most of the houses on the street are not listed. Only Derwent House and its large neighbour to the left, Bonchester, in the immediate vicinity. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So if i am interpreting that correctly it is at 51°24′38″N 0°03′41″E / 51.410571°N 0.061435°E / 51.410571; 0.061435 (Derwent House), which for some reason brings up term "Wimple Nook" when "what's here" is checked (right-click on loacation in Google maps. From the satellite view, it is looks like a complex-roofed building, not more significant than neighbors up and down the road. Why is this one listed but not others? Bonchester is a dismbiguation page; there is no Wikipedia coverage of Bonchester Close AFAICT. --Doncram (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I am generally "inclusionist", but don't see justification here to Keep, yet. There is no link to this from any list of Grade II listed buildings in Bromley, or wherever; I think no one is creating such lists even, much less individual articles. --Doncram (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of Grade II listed buildings in England is almost empty. It would be okay as an alternative to deletion to redirect this to a list in which it is covered, but there is no such list. --Doncram (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it's listed because Historic England staff, who are experts in their field, think it's worthy of listing! Bonchester is also listed. The fact it doesn't have a WP page yet is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It appears that almost the entire article is unsourced, and could therefore be stripped down to "The Derwent House on Camden Park Road in Chislehurst, Bromley, is a Grade II listed building built in 1899, and was designed by Ernest Newton. A large property on which it was later built was bought in 1890 by William Willet. it has a tiled roof." The two sources in the article having links only establish Grade II listing and architect. The 1890 The Builder source, unlinked, apparently only establishes purchase date (i infer this from reference placement in article and fact that it is dated 9 years before building's construction). All the rest is unsourced embroidery, AFAICT, and is mostly not about the house itself. It is not even established that Willet was its builder, or that it is Arts and Crafts in style, or that there was any later addition (maybe true, but not supported). Does not establish significance/notability for Wikipedia, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) 16:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The substantial detail in the article was added in 2009 by an I.P. editor without sourcing. I tend to believe the info, do expect the person was informed and correct, but there is no sourcing given. --Doncram (talk) 04:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

@Doncram: Sorry I got tied up. The map coordinates you listed are correct but Google map does contain errors so I am not sure why it shows "Wimple Nook". I categorically reject assertions that a "presumption of notability" is somehow equated to "automatic notability".
I am in a state of shock concerning this whole thing. This is not because of "Delete" !votes, because there apparently have some justification, but because:
  • This building and others, (apparently lowly listed as only a standard grade II) is nationally listed and does carry protection under the law.
  • The area (all Chislehurst) and building, listed under "location" as "68 DERWENT HOUSE CAMDEN PARK ROAD CHISLEHURST BR7 5HF", clearly identifies the building just before Bonchester Close). My reasoning and initial assessment was that these are supported by Historic Environment Law, the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and a supplement in 2014, and the National Planning Policy Framework giving the statutory duty of special regard to listed buildings. Regardless if there is 20 buildings and areas or a half million "it would seem" that there would be primary sourcing (at the least) leading up to such classification as well as secondary regional or even local sources. I have found nothing yet even in the local Bromeley Times.
  • A concern of the lack of easily
    found
    sources, apparently shared by others is perplexing, making this difficult considering most of these were grand estates with architectural significance from particular eras and with national listing.
I am still looking, considering the historical aspect of the subject and such significance as the provided protection under national laws, it seems there "should be sourcing somewhere and maybe it just hasn't been found". Wikipedia is not, however, a
crystal ball
and there needs to be sourcing.
The link for the [nursing home] does not provide any usable substance. I found the subject name referenced as being in the book [Discover Chislehurst and its Environs] (2007 by Darrell Spurgeon) but do not have access for examination. I have found historical drawings that I think is the building but need to be able to confirm this.
No street view!. This is a gated community so private. If one goes to Google street view using "CTRL+ mouse drag" the uniqueness of the architecture can be viewed in 360 degrees. This is especially appealing considering the design is from 1899. Most of the buildings in this area are grand and unique. Please note!: All of the buildings are considered important and protected by the conservation status of the area. Many of these buildings are individually listed but not all of them.
None of this really matters if there is not an editor in that area that wishes to take interest in this, or one with better resources. I was looking for copies of the newsletters Cockpit, the Chislehurst Report, and the Chislehurst Resident that might provide some connection but have not located anything yet. I did see the 1992 study Chislehurst Conservation Area but content on the subject is just a repeat of previous material and does not cover any historical aspects.
All of the above aside I am at a lose as to where the sources are found. Otr500 (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Wimple Nook" is a valid alternative name and sources might be found searching on that term? This list of Council taxes omits "68 Camden Park Road" and includes "Wimple Nook" instead. But my searching is overwhelmed by hits on "nook" reader device. --Doncram (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also browsing found me mention in this of de Quincey family \, that "“Aunt Alice” is likely to have been Alice Maud De Quincey Hayward, Richard’s married older sister who lived at Derwent House, Camden Park Road." and in this a mention of a 1912 wedding including a son of "Mrs. Heyward, of Derwent House, Chislehurst". --Doncram (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge / redirect to an article on Chiselhurst Conservation Area (was a redlink)? Akin to an article covering a NRHP-listed historic district in U.S., in which brief treatments of various buildings are included, often in a table.. The source that User:Otr500 provided is substantial and gives wide context about arts and crafts and more, including specifically on page 30 that "Derwent, No. 68 by Newton, was built in 1899; it is two storey plus attics with red brick ground floor and tile hanging above. The tiled roof is hipped on the left and half hipped on the right. There are 2 gabled, tile hung dormers. On the right is a modern brick 2-storey addition." Which corroborates previously unsourced stuff in the article since 2009. --Doncram (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also this interactive map of conservation areas and listed buildings in Bromley allows zoom in to see Derwent and all the others within big Chislehurst area.--Doncram (talk) 01:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have found information on other places while looking that has more sources. I would support this. Otr500 (talk) 03:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by that study, I am not sure this house would even merit a mention in an article on Chiselhurst Conservation Area. We simply have a description of a house made of bricks and tiles. As to the area itself, there are 45 conservation areas in Bromley alone, so I am not sure an article on this particular one is warranted. The lengthy Chislehurst Society Area Study, while full of intresting information, should not be considered an independent source for the purposes of demonstrating notability - the society exists to promote the interests of residents in preserving the area, regardless of its particular historical signficance when viewed in a wider context. The
Chiselhurst article has room for expansion, and I'd contend anything worth mentioning about the conservation area should be included there instead. ----Pontificalibus 06:23, 20 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longshanks (band)

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

An article about a band that does not appear to meet

WP:PRODed the article, but the PROD was contested by the page create without explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:21, 11 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Dingra

Rajiv Dingra (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)

Sources are neither independent not reliable. None are in-depth.

is an interview with the subject

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 11 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marxer

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Majer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 11 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things (film)

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

Article, created by somebody with a direct personal

reference bombing it with bad sources in an attempt to hide its lack of good ones, and articles like that have to go away. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite COI and sockpuppet issues, I don't see any issues with
    WP:TNT not needed. I'll note that although it was a decade ago at this point, there was a previous bundle AfD which decided Things was notable but Gillis wasn't. I don't think that has changed over the years.LM2000 (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Considering that most of the sources here are trash, I'm not seeing how GNG has been satisfied at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom. This whole article needs
    WP:TNT and can come back if someone finds actually significant and reliable sources for it. It's a complete mess on every level at the moment. The COI issue also means this article should be vigorously uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: Per Nom. Sorry but I cannot give socks or COI editing any ground. I don't know the reliability of Huffpost but the implications that a COI editor has a close relation to the subject means a possible financial gain so by proxy is COI/paid editing. This automatically calls into question any
    "Five pillars". Otr500 (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - COI issues aside, the poor sourcing on this does not allow the article to pass the
    WP:GNG. As stated, the vast majority of sources on this are not from reliable sources, and the few that do come from reliable sources are not substantial enough to establish notability. The book by Harris Lentz, for example, is nothing more than a listing of the film's year of release and cast. As the nom stated, the article was just reference bombed to make it appear that it received far more coverage from legitimate sources than it actually did, and when you strip that all away, what remains is not enough to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 18 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project 3D-VIEW

Project 3D-VIEW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not able to find multiple independent sources to support this article. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:40, 11 June 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) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Morantz

Marty Morantz (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)

reliable source is just the purely routine "party selects candidate" piece that every party's candidate in every election always gets in the local media, so it is not enough coverage to make him special all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the federal seat -- but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free platform for candidates' campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete No notable enough to keep Kevinhanit (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed candidate for provincial office and current candidate for federal office do not meet
WP:NPOL. If/when Morantz wins the seat, we can re-discuss. Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 17 June 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) 19:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April Jeffs

April Jeffs (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)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a smalltown mayor and as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, these are not notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves: a municipality has to be much larger than Wainfleet before its mayors are presumed notable just for existing as mayors, and a person has to win the federal election, not just run in it, to become notable because of a federal election. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if she wins, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here constitutes reasons why she would already be eligible for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:34, 18 June 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) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Vidal

Gary Vidal (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)

WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a smalltown mayor and as yet non-winning candidate in a future election. As always, these are not notability claims that get a person into Wikipedia in and of themselves: a municipality has to be much larger than Meadow Lake before its mayors are presumed notable just for existing as mayors, and a person has to win the federal election, not just run in it, to become notable because of a federal election. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here constitutes reasons why he would already be eligible for a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to keep Kevinhanit (talk) 00:04, 13 June 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) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Aitchison

Scott Aitchison (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)

Semi-advertorialized

primary sources self-published by the city government, which are not notability-supporting sources -- the only one that's media coverage is from a community hyperlocal, and is merely a short blurb verifying that he won the mayoral election in 2014, which is not substantive or wide enough coverage to make a smalltown mayor permanently notable all by itself. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the federal election -- but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of campaign brochures for aspiring MPs, and nothing here is valid grounds for him to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Not notable enough and even comes from a small town. Can be recreated if he wins the fall federal election. Kevinhanit (talk) 00:07, 13 June 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) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Weir

Sean Weir (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)

primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all -- and the other one is the routine "party selects candidate" piece from a community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to make him permanently notable just for being a candidate. As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he would already qualify to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete Not notable enough to keep at this time. Article can be recreated if he wins in the fall federal election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinhanit (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 June 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) 19:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B S Shiju

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

A mildly promotional article about a person without evidence of notability. (Despite the

bombarding
of the articles with references, few if any of them give substantial coverage of him.) (Contested PROD.) Yhto Plwhm (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Yhto Plwhm (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a political party's research director is not an "inherently" notable role for the purposes of getting an encyclopedia article — it could get him in the door if he were shown to clear
    primary sources like his employer's own self-published media relations handbook, or purely tangential verification of stray facts about other things or people that completely fail to mention Shiju at all in the process — and the few that are genuinely about Shiju are just short employment announcement blurbs, not substantive coverage. The notability test is not "has had his name mentioned in the media", it is "has been substantively the subject of a significant volume of media coverage about him", and the sources here aren't passing it. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Per Bearcat. This article fails
    WP:SIGCOV of this man is just not there. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:38, 18 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Konanz

Helena Konanz (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)

WP:SPA who seems to be almost exclusively interested in creating premature articles about as yet unelected Conservative Party of Canada candidates.
As always, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if she wins — but neither the sourcing nor the substance here constitutes reasons why she would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NTENNIS as she competed in the main draw of 6 Grand Slam events in Doubles. There is no requirement for players to be seeded to pass the SNG. Iffy★Chat -- 09:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:NTENNIS as mentioned above, as she has competed in several WTA events, including six grand slams. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep Notable enough as a tennis player. Kevinhanit (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She did appear in 6 Grand Slam doubles events, although she never won a match there. A top doubles ranking of #228 wouldn't seem to be encyclopedic, but she does meet
    WP:NTENNIS. Papaursa (talk) 19:52, 16 June 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) 19:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Duncan (Canadian politician)

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

WP:SPA who seems to exist solely to start premature articles about nominated Conservative Party of Canada candidates in the forthcoming election. Obviously, no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the seat and becomes an MP, but neither the sourcing nor the substance here are enough to make a smalltown mayor or an as yet unelected candidate special enough to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Actually, do we still make those types of pages? Alaney2k (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There hasn't been a formal consensus to officially deprecate them, but the will to create or maintain such pages at all has certainly waned in the past few years. Federally, lists do exist for 2015; provincially, Ontario was the only province that ever consistently did them, and even then 2011 is the last time they were done consistently across the board — the PCs have one for 2014, but no other party does. In other provinces, lists either never existed at all, or exist only as isolated one-shots for purely random and inconsistent combinations of party and election year. As well, even the lists we have are incredibly poor — many still follow the old style, where the lists were allowed to contain basically all of the biographical content that would have been in a standalone BLP if the person qualified for one, and have never been properly cleaned up to comply with the tightening of rules that disallowed that. Conversely, the newer ones are complying with the current "no extended biographical sketches" rules, but there's little to no editorial will to actually getting them completed: see, frex, Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in the 2011 Ontario provincial election, in which the residence, votes, % and rank columns have not been filled in for even one person in the list, and the occupation column has been filled in only for three. And since the election articles contain complete vote results tables anyway, the lists aren't actually offering any unique information we aren't already covering in other places. So for all of those reasons, I believe that the lists should be deleted and not carried forward as a thing we do anymore, but there hasn't been a formal consensus for that yet.
    And at any rate, we have a longstanding consensus that we do not keep articles about unelected candidates just because the election is "close". If the election were literally less than seven days away, such that an AFD discussion might have to be prematurely closed if they turn out to win, then we have some leeway to potentially consider just holding off for a few days — but candidates get no special dispensation to keep articles months in advance of election day just because there's a chance that they might win. Either he already holds an NPOL-passing office today, or he has to wait until he does before an article gets to be started at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't currently pass
    WP:NPOL but the article could be Draftified until the election and then either published if Duncan wins or deleted if he loses. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We shouldn't be draftifying premature articles about candidates pending the election results, because that just turns draftspace into exactly the repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates that NPOL is designed to prevent mainspace from becoming: if we draftspace this, then we automatically have to let every other candidate across Canada keep a draftspace page pending the election results too. We also have the ability to restore deleted articles if circumstances change, so draftspacing isn't necessary. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat you're right, completely forgot about that option. Straight up delete. GPL93 (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to be kept at this time. Article can be recreated if he wins the fall federal election. Kevinhanit (talk) 00:23, 13 June 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 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog

AfDs for this article:
Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog (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)

Has been deleted before on notability grounds and has been notability tagged since March 2017. In common with many articles of this kind (see the successfully deleted Patriotic Socialist Party), this outfit was a one-off novelty act with little to no notable independent coverage, little to no electoral impact, little to no notable people associated with them, and little to no notable impact after their time in the spotlight. Notability is not attached to political parties merely by their existing, they must do something other than stand for election to be notable. By that measure alone Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog fails WP:GNG. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:23, 11 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copper Canyon Apartment Homes shooting

Copper Canyon Apartment Homes shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [21])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event does not seem that notable to me, it doesn't really have a lasting impact on many people, yes a police officer was killed, but cops are killed quite often. Out of all the 2017 mass shootings, this one has the least amount of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YatesTucker00090 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcin Urynowicz

Marcin Urynowicz (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)

PhD in 2008. h-index of around 4. Works for a government education/research/prosecution/lustration agency. Not close to passing NPROF or NAUTHOR. Doesn't seem to pass GNG either. Note that there is a Polish soccer player,[24] with the same name with much more coverage - however they are not the same individual (the soccer player is 20 years younger).Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • getting quoted by news media is not an indication of notability in any field. What we need to see is stuff like long profiles of his work and impact; books getting multiple reviews in solid journals, and/or serious scholarly papers/books that discuss his work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per arguments above. Zezen (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:SIGCOV of any of his life or works. Just nothing substantive here. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Newshunter12. --MrClog (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also found this [28], but it seemingly also relies on what he said about something that happened in the history. So I am not convinced with Piotrus' arguments here:
    Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:44, 18 June 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 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Black

Christopher Black (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)

Semi-advertorialized

WP:GNG. This was a good faith creation in 2005, but Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing standards have changed too much in the past 14 years and this article isn't meeting them anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree the article needs a major rewrite with a lot of content taken out and better sourcing, but there’s no doubt that sources are plentiful. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say that sources are plentiful, because there aren't good sources in the article and my own
WP:NEXIST argument, then you have to show hard evidence of what other sources you're finding, and it's not enough to just say that sources are plentiful if you don't show some evidence of those plentiful sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Among what I could find are 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both BBC links are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage about him that would constitute support for his notability; and the book just takes me to a "you have reached a page that is unavailable for viewing" error, making it completely impossible for me to verify whether it constitutes substantive coverage or just another glancing namecheck. The Toronto Star source is good, but isn't in and of itself enough if the other three aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree the tone is inappropriate and promotional but on rereading your nomination, where you say claims of notability are not well sourced, I wonder if you mean that we can’t really be sure that he was an advocate in the Rwanda and Yugoslavia trials? If you think there is no sound basis for believing he had these roles then I see why you think his notability is doubtful. If you are satisfied he did have these roles, I’m not clear why you think the claim of notability is not well sourced. There may be specific details that lack sources but the overall picture isn’t in doubt, or is it? Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not a question of what the article says, it's a question of how well the article references what it says. The notability test he has to pass, to qualify for an article on here, does not hinge on simply being able to offer technical verification that he exists, in
    WP:GNG as notable for holding any given job title. No job title, not even "King of the World", ever hands anybody an instant notability freebie that would exempt them from having to have been covered by the media in that role before they qualify to have a Wikipedia article because of it. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 16 June 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) 16:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Dowdall

Terry Dowdall (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)

primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all; two more are the routinely expected coverage in a community hyperlocal, which are not notability-clinching sources for a smalltown mayor or a non-winning MP candidate all by themselves, because every smalltown mayor and every non-winning MP candidate can always show a hit or two in their local media; and the last looks stronger on the surface if you only eyeball its URL, but is not actually about him for the purposes of establishing his notability: it just quotes him giving soundbite about a public emergency in an article whose subject is the emergency and not him. As always, getting a person into Wikipedia is not just a matter of showing that his name has appeared in the media two or more times: we also evaluate (a) the depth of how substantively a source is or isn't about him; (b) the geographic range of how widely the coverage is spreading, and (c) the context of what he's getting coverage for -- but none of this is enough.
No prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins the federal election, but nothing here (either in the sourcing or the substance) constitutes a reason why he would be entitled to have a campaign brochure on Wikipedia today. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 11 June 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 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark DeMontis

Mark DeMontis (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)

WP:SPA who seems to exist only to start articles about nominated Conservative Party of Canada candidates in the forthcoming election. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak Delete - Likely notable for his trip across Canada and for his creation of the Canadian Blind Hockey Association. Kevinhanit (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Kevinhanit (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article now has additional sources and needs to be looked at by nominator. Bearcat to see if this should be speedily closed. Kevinhanit (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's been added is not enough to change the equation here. GNG is not just "as soon as the number of media hits in the article meets or exceeds two", but also tests for depth and range and context. It doesn't include Q&A interviews in which the subject is the speaker, so "Blind hockey players, Ottawa 67's hit the ice" doesn't help at all — he has to be the thing being spoken about, not the person who's doing the speaking, for a source to assist in establishing his notability. Short blurbs aren't substantive coverage — so "Blind hockey rolling across east" would be fine for verification of stray facts if the notability question had already been covered off by stronger sources, but is not a notability-making source. So the only new source that's actually getting us anywhere at all is "Prime Minister to honour blind hockey player", but that source doesn't get us to the finish line all by itself as the only substantive and reliable source in play. Even in terms of establishing that he had preexisting notability as an organizational founder, it still takes considerably more substantive coverage than this is even attempting to show. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed provincial candidate and future federal candidate do not meet
    WP:PROMO. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 17 June 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 Move to draft--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaiden Animations

AfDs for this article:
Jaiden Animations (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)

Speedy was removed with the rationale "as has content related to multiple events post the AFD". However, there was no real in-depth coverage since the last AfD. The first new source, from The Daily Star, is a shared sentence about her. The second is from Animation Magazine, and is a very brief mention. The same with the new refs from Market Insider, WatMag, and TenEighty. More simple mentions occur in News.com.au, Billboard, Streamys, Variety, Heavy, and Metro. There were a couple of YouTube additions as well, which isn't a RS. The only new source which was more than a mere mention was the second source from TenEighty, which is about a health care panel she sat on. However, that's more of an interview, and not really in-depth about her, and as an interview, it's a primary source, and doesn't go to notability. Onel5969 TT me 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or maybe make it into a draft - Jaiden is still relevant/notable being involved in the 2017 and 2018 YouTube Rewind and working with other YouTubers. The article just needs some work. Also, how does
    David Brown (boyinaband) meet notability but Jaiden doesn't? Just doesn't make sense to me. Within the next few days I can find more sources and improve the article. I'll tag @Atlantic306: since he removed the deletion tag and gave a reason for it. If it isn't ready, we could make it into a draft, work on it, and make it an article when it is ready. Might just be a case of WP:too soon but if she isn't notable enough now she might be notable enough in the future. Deleting it just doesn't seem like the best option when she is a pretty big YouTuber.Bowling is life (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without considering the article sources, a new search for sources finds these:
All in all, there is not a heck of a lot here, based on a fresh search. Even considering the article sources, which are largely passing mentions and lists, the Metro article above is the only in-depth overage I can find.
talk) 18:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Being popular on Youtube means nothing. For notability we need in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Please show us the "coverage".
talk) 02:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
To add to what
WP:WAX). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:48, 16 June 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 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Sullivan (Canadian lawyer)

John J. Sullivan (Canadian lawyer) (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)

Biography of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party. This is not an

WP:NPOL clinch, however; people who have been in that situation qualify for Wikipedia articles only if they can demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons besides having been an unsuccessful leadership candidate, such as having been an actual member of the party's caucus in the legislature and/or having already had preexisting notability for other reasons before they ran for leader. But the only other potential notability claim here, the Evelyn Dick murder trial, is not referenced to any evidence of media coverage about Sullivan in that context, and I can't find any elsewhere, either: even on a deep ProQuest search for pregooglable coverage, all I'm getting is glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of Dick, not coverage that is substantively about Sullivan for the purposes of getting him over GNG as an individual. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 11 June 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

Reactive extensions#Observables and Observers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Observable (Computing)

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

This is nothing more than covert artspam for reactivex and is specific only to this, basically a neologism and rife with

WP:OR. Praxidicae (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge into

Reactive extensions; if "An observable is one of the key components of reactive programming", Reactive programming should include it. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. If kept as a redirect, the page will need to be renamed to
WP:PARENDIS. Narky Blert (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Confirm I'm happy with that rename. It's also just possible this is
WP:TOOSOON Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:13, 18 June 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) 16:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dix mille ans de cinéma

Dix mille ans de cinéma (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)

Yet another short film I can't find much notability for. Either delete or a redirect to the director (Balufu Bakupa-Kanyinda) would be the best. The only sources I can find are Wiki mirrors (outside of a Youtube link) Wgolf (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 14:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails
    WP:BEFORE search I did. It's just not notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:50, 19 June 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 Uplift Universe. Tone 20:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoon (fiction)

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

Unsourced article on a fictional species that fails

MOS:REALWORLD. This nomination is related to List of Uplift Universe species, also at AfD RetiredDuke (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same issues w/ lack of sources and failure of GNG/MOSREALWORLD:

Soro (fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Tymbrimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 14:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Uplift; too crufty for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems like this isn't getting a lot of attention, so I'm just going to argue that I don't agree with a merger since none of the content is reliably sourced. If the best sources we can get on these creatures are the novels they originated from, then this is just a lot of fan-crufty original research. And whether in these articles or in another article, the content still fails MOS:REALWORLD since there's no secondary discussion of these topics at all. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without a redirect (too many hoons:)) to an appropriate section of Uplift Universe, no sourcing to sustain a standalone article, ditto the others. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Uplift Universe. Much of the information are unnecessary therefore can be trimmed before merging. Apart from some passing mentions, I can't see RS that deals with the subject in depth, so deletion is also a possibility. Hzh (talk) 13:46, 18 June 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. Consensus is that the subject currently fails notability guidelines. If anyone wants the article userfied so that they can work on it if/when more sources become available, let me know. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwafunmilayo Oni

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

Contested A7 speedy as makes some claim to significance. However, does not meet

WP:GNG. Sources are weak and PR-heavy. Could be worthy of an article in the future but not yet. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —

WP:BASIC.Tamsier (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

As far as I can see, there is no connection between The Guardian (Nigeria) and The Guardian, although I am sure both are equally reliable so that's probably beside the point. The question in my mind is not reliability but depth, volume, and significance of coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited are not passing mentions but an in-depth coverage of the subject which is a Wiki policy. Can you point me to any Wiki policy that specifically mentions the word "volume" for the purposes of AfD? I have heard of "multiple" and
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.". Multiple, again, mean more than one, and for our purposes, not from the same source - which is what we have here. Therefore, can you tell me which policy you are referring to when you mentioned "volume"? As it currently stand, your other rationale for nominating this article goes contrary to our policy. I am therefore waiting for your rationale for "volume".Tamsier (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • DELETE - Subject does not meet
    WP:WHYN explains further why the current coverage of the subject is insufficient for notability. Others have made valid delete arguments which I won't repeat here. ogenstein (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A delete closure right now would be completely defensible, but out of deference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Loves Women, I'm going to relist this to see if a clearer consensus emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep> Clearly meets GNG, adequate coverage in neutral, reliable sources. Underrepresented topic, often a bit harder to find source material, but the sources provided here are high-quality and reliable. Montanabw(talk) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your "underrepresentation" argument. Neither the topical nor the geographical scope looks like areas where a notable subject wouldn't get sufficient references. Since the internet boom in 2010s, Nigeria is one of the most digitally active countries. And she's doing something that news portals will want to cover. The issue I see here is that she hasn't gotten enough impact to attract more significant coverage, which may come if she remains consistent in what she is doing. HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment; i clearly would have just skip commenting here and just wait for the consensus but with HandsomeBoy comment about "underrepresentation argument" will not make me. This is a Nigeria subject where the media don't care to cover your work even if meeting cogent needs and worthy of news portals until you make a move and this is one of the cogent areas as Nigeria Wikimedia community we are focusing for our Wiki Loves Women project campaign that the media should always do the needful and that's why we are in partnership with a lot of media houses now. There are lot of Nigeria women right now worthy of a Wikipedia article but cant be here as the Nigerian media isn't motivated to do a story on them until they make the move themselves and that's a real information gap; i clearly understand Wikipedia guidelines about notability but when HandsomeBoy who is a Nigerian and familiar with some of the challenges comment like this, then i have to react. Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand my point. Does gender bias exist on Wikipedia? Yes. Are African content less represented than western topics? Yes. But putting that into context in my assessment of this article. I don't believe that is what is coming to play here. Just because someone is a woman and she's doing something inspirational, does not mean automatic notability. To make myself clearer, example of scenarios where gender gap is very operational on Wikipedia is women in sports, etc. Most of my articles on Wikipedia are cinema-related, I can tell you that there is little disparity between both gender in that topic area. Men and women in films are covered almost equally in Nigeria. Same applies to musicians, however in terms of genres of music, there can be a convincing argument. Now coming to this article, I want you to ask yourself, if Olufunmilayo Oni was a man doing exactly what she is doing will that increase/reduce her coverage significantly? Again, if she was focused on removing the number of male school drop-outs, will that change anything? Speaking about coverage, There are a number of popular Nigerian news portals that generally support sensational topics that are not profit-oriented. If she continues to do this, she will get one of the numerous credible individual service award for her dedication to humanity which will make her pass N:BASIC. When I speak of topical scope, I mean what she's doing is something that people/government will love to read about, which is why she is even likely to get at least some coverage without even being notable.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And when I speak of 2010s internet boom, what I mean is that the way I assess the coverage for a Nigerian musician who peaked in 1990s is different from another musician that rose in 2016 for example. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:16, 14 June 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 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honorio Banario

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject has not been fought in top tier promotion. Fails

talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:12, 11 June 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 20:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hofmann

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject has not fought in top tier promotion. Fails

talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:08, 11 June 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 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Liao

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

Fails

WP:NACTOR with no sources at all. Sheldybett (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
☎) 02:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Secondary coverage where the coverage was about the actress
  1. Variety
  2. Bustle
  3. Featured in Teenplicity
  4. Minimal coverage here hnentertainment
Thank you for the additional sources, but these are still either announcements of a future role in an unreleased film, or of a minor role in a TV show. I think we're looking at a case of
talk) 18:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Just attempted to improve the page by incorporating those sources and some more, as well as fixing the formatting of the page. Starklinson (talk) 9:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the improvements since this was nominated, another week to discuss the new sources seems like a good idea.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she has had notable roles in several mainstream productions. I found some sources, and I see she easily passes
    ☎) 02:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Reliable sources like this [30] and others found, proves she passes the general notability guideline as well as the subject specific guideline for actors. Dream Focus 04:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be plenty of sources out there. Here's another one. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still don't see how
    talk) 13:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Doesn't matter since
    WP:NOTABILITY clearly states, you have to pass either the General Notability Guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Dream Focus 16:38, 13 June 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 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Meltzer (author)

David Meltzer (author) (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)

primary sources (self-written contributor or staff profiles on the websites of his own employers, his books metaverifying their own existence in online bookstores, etc.), two of the remaining three are podcasts, and the only one that's actually a genuinely reliable source is just a short blurb in a listicle which quotes him speaking about himself rather than being written about in the third person. None of this is substantive reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over a notability criterion, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show any substantive reliable source coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:21, 11 June 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 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keyun Ruan

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

Does not meet

WP:NPROF. Being editor of a book and having written a couple of papers is not sufficient. Almost all references are her own work, and being included in a '30 under 30' list is not nearly enough in the absence of other in-depth coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly fails
    WP:BASIC. While I do hope she succeeds and makes a name for herself, she hasn't yet. Hydromania (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 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 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Kelly (fighter)

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter who has not fought in any top tier promotion. Fails

talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 08:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 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 from List of countries by English-speaking population. Sandstein 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) - Amended, Sandstein 13:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geographical distribution of English speakers

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

Redundant to List of countries by English-speaking population. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

Geographical distribution of English speakers being the latter more updated, reliable and recent.FrankCesco26 (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@FrankCesco26: Go right ahead. I'm OK with it. Interstellarity T 🌟 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 06:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as copyvio. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kosman Island

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

An article about an island could be notable, but in that case the the article should be about the island. This article is not. Unreliable and possibly fails

WP:GNG. The Banner talk 11:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Reliability is, ironically, not the problem. The text of the article was lifted wholesale, sentence by sentence, from Sabetian & Foale 2006, p. 6. It was not actually written by a Wikipedia editor at all. Copying and pasting is not writing. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sabetian, Armagan; Foale, Simon (2006). "Evolution of the artisanal fisher: case studies from Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea". Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin (20): 3–10.
    • Kinch, Jeff (January 2002). "Giant clams: Their status and trade in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea". TRAFFIC Bulletin. 19 (2).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly rename to
    WP:GEOLAND says geographical features may be notable 'provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.' The content of this article is that information. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
original by Sabetian & Foale, op. cit. ganked copy
Beche-de-mer are cooked on these small uninhabited islands, which are used as camps for one to two-week-long fishing trips, made mainly by Ware and Brooker Islanders (Geoff Cal- lister, pers. comm.). Apart from the six-month closed season, and what appear to be increasingly frequent and acrimonious territorial disputes between Brooker and Ware Island fishers, the fish- ery is essentially unregulated. There is very little in the way of local level management initiatives, and one of the reasons for this is an apparent lack of awareness of the limits of stocks. Foale (2005) pre- sents interview data from islands in the Bwanab- wana language group (which includes Ware Island) on the topic of perceived limits to fished stocks (reproduced in Table 1 below). Foales demonstrates that there is relatively low awareness of limits to beche-de-mer, even despite the common knowledge of sandfish and black teat overfishing, and an almost total disbelief that there might be limits to finfish populations Beche-de-mer are cooked on these small islets, which have camps for one to two-week-long fishing trips, made mainly by Wari and Utian Islanders. The fishery is essentially unregulated. There is very little in the way of local level management initiatives, and one of the reasons for this is an apparent lack of awareness of the limits of stocks. Foale (2005) presented interview data from islanders, in which he found low awareness of limits to Beche-de-mer, even despite the common knowledge of sandfish and black teat overfishing.
original by Kinch 2002, p. 24 ganked copy
He stated that prior to commercial harvesting, unfished areas of south-ern Milne Bay Province contained an overall density of 39/ha for all species of giant clams (Chesher, 1980). Prior to commercial harvesting, the overall density for all species of giant clams, was 39/ha.
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. Too much socking for a good discussion. Can be renominated. Sandstein 17:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Kichu Bhene Pare

Sab Kichu Bhene Pare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · for deletion/Sab Kichu Bhene Pare Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The given references of the article are not worthy of it, they do not provide any strong information about the book. Shoikot H (talk) (cont) 13:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC) This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meets
(keep talking) 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As some of the participants were identified as socks, relisting to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject (book) is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, three of the !voters have been globally locked for long-term abuse, which does normally include sockpuppetry and other shenanigans. I’ll strike out their !votes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE
vote. As such, requesting more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 11:23, 11 June 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) 16:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darryn August

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

Article about a person not truly notable per

WP:BLP1E
. The event this person reportedly is notable for didn't even happen, which reduces it to nothing more than a petty fraud crime story. Minor human interest story at the time, but not worthy of note in an encyclopaedia.

BLP1E says probably don't have an article:

  • 1) If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  • 2) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
  • 3) If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

Tick on all three counts.

Should probably add; most refs are same story regurgitated. ClubOranjeT 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ClubOranjeT 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ClubOranjeT 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:43, 11 June 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) 16:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndiMusic TV

IndiMusic TV (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)

Reads like blatant advertising. Of its 3 sources, 2 are not independent reliable sources (ascap.com and prnewswire.com) and 1 is a book which I do not have access to. Contains inline external links to sources that do not satisfy

WP:NCORP
either).

Created in 2009 by a user whose name is the same as that of the founder of the subject of the article, and whose only contributions to Wikipedia were to write this article, add very promotional content to another article in support of this article, and to add wikilinks to a third article for an identical name to that of the user in question. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 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? 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An interview in a local paper is just another weak reference that does not satisfy
WP:NCORP. As for press releases adding context, this AfD is about notability and press releases do not contribute toward that. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:SPA with an obvious financial interest in this page, so this article should be swiftly uprooted to remove such corruption from Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 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) 16:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Grant (political expert)

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

Fails WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in independent sources. BilCat (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she has done less than expected.

Her biggest appearance this year for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ8BDF_gTK0

Hcobb (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's plausible she passes AUTHOR or one of the NPROF guidelines (some of her pieces do have not insignificant citation counts - however the common name makes things difficult here). Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can just google for "Rebecca Grant airpower" or USAF or F-35 and all the results will be for this one specific Dr. Grant. Hcobb (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:BEFORE search I did turned up nothing substantial. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:55, 19 June 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) 07:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas D. Everett

Thomas D. Everett (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)

Notability not established. Not high enough in hierarchy to be automatically notable. Doesn't seem to pass

WP:NACADEMIC, although there are other people with the same name. Not much media coverage. Another editor tagged this for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but it isn't, since U.S. federal government publications are in the public domain. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being executive director of the US Federal Highway Administration is certainly a role that could get a person into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear
    primary sources which do not count as support for notability at all — and the other two are brief glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage about him. The inclusion test for people like this is not just the ability to verify that he has been named in newspaper articles once or twice — it is whether he has been the subject of enough coverage to clear GNG, and there's no evidence here that he has. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Per Bearcat. Fails
    WP:GNG plain and simple. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:04, 19 June 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 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office

Fort Bend County Sheriff's Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable law enforcement agency. Article is based on primary sources alone. Article contains no information of encyclopedic value. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Page was previously PRODded as a one-liner, then re-created and expanded, hence AFD rather than
    WP:PROD is the applicable process. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All police departments seem notable to me. Further, this one is fairly large. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of sufficient coverage. Clearly not all police departments are notable. That idea causes me to run for the hills.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet
    WP:ROUTINE. It is completely impossible in most cases to write an article sourced primarily to secondary sources. There are absolutely 0 secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Further, news stories about any police department (and not about crimes) are likely to be about corruption and misconduct. Use those stories and people complain about a lack of balance.''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 13:32, 16 June 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. Museumification to

WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Battle of Manila (1365)

Battle of Manila (1365) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources referenced in this article do not explicitly mention that a battle occurred in 1365 in a locality named "Manila". Some of the sources even lack the necessary keywords like "1365", "Battle" and "Manila", making this article not satisfy the basic verifiability and notability criteria of Wikipedia. Also, it is clear from the conversations with the author in the talk page that he can't provide reliable secondary sources from reputable journals or academic books that can be used to improve this article and all that has been claimed so far in this specific Wiki page are most likely original research. Stricnina (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Stricnina (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most creditable interpretation of the talk page discussion is that there must have been a battle, but that it is completely lost to history, all records of it destroyed. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Some quick looking around only got me a book that was written by people with credentials in geomorphology, agriculture, and soil science that explicitly cited Wikipedia as its source for its history. And even that did not actually talk about any battles in 1365, just about Canto 14 and Saludong, as discussed at the top of the article's talk page back in 2016. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Talk:Battle of Manila (1365), and as sufficiently explained by the nominator. The only thing which can extracted from the sources cited (reliable or not) is that around that time (year not specified) some kind of political transition (unknown whether peacefully or by external force) took place in certain polities in the area of present-day Manila (which latter itself is not mentioned). I.e. the very event which makes up the subject of the article is completely unattested. –Austronesier (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I as the primary author of this article recognize that after some peer review by my fellow Wikipedians, the only truth that can be extracted is that Manila was under the political dominion of Majapahit at least by that year metioned, from a previously independent status. Whether a battle or voluntary allegiance happened, isn't stated explicitly only that political domination occured according to the text of the book "Nagarakretagama". I suggest deleting this article and migrating the information to the new one, called: "Incorporation or Vassalage of Manila" to make it conform to community standards.--Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion on the Talk page. I am not convinced that moving the article (as implied by the previous reaction) is the best solution. Probably just one or two sentences of the current article are worth to keep, which can better be incorporated in History_of_Manila#Early_references_to_Selurong_(1360s). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And clearly do not move the article. Not every change in control of a place is worthy of its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Talk:Battle of Manila (1365) I would say deleting this article and replacing the data to the new one. --MA Javadi (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a blatant hoax
    talk) 18:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete and consider sending to
    talk) 00:51, 17 June 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 procedural delete. G5. Created by a sock. Further reading:

(non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sheesh Ram

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

No evidence of notability per

WP:POLITICIAN. Sheldybett (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:47, 11 June 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 17:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diospyros ebonasea

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

No botanical databases have any record of Diospyros ebonasea. This species name doesn't not exist. Several woodworking sites do have articles on "Malaysian blackwood"; at least one notes that the scientific name given is unconfirmed. I'm not sure that Malaysian blackwood is notable subject given that there is very little reliable information about it (such as the species it comes from). However, the title "Diospyros ebonasea" should not exist. Plantdrew (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not in the ITIS, not in Wikispecies, not in the i-Tree database, not in the AVH. All mention of it I can find either has no date or is dated after the article was added by Boy888 in 2012, which I speculate was a deliberate hoax. Also, Comment: If this article is deleted, mention of the alleged species in the Wiktionary entry for 'blackwood' (added in 2013) should be subsequently removed. TheTechnician27 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Per below, I retract my speculation of a deliberate hoax, but per Elmidae, a guitar catalogue is not taxonomic literature; the article and corresponding mention in the Wiktionary should still be removed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete absence of any verifiable trace of the species, so I would assume it was a hoax entry. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No information. This is likely a hoax. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly not a hoax: [31]. Routinely mentioned in luthery sites. I suggest: DE "is an unconfirmed botanical name commonly associated to Malaysian blackwood ...". 188.216.192.146 (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted, all these mentions seem to postdate the creation of the Wikipedia article, which suggests that the name originated here (possilikely as a hoax) and then spread over the net. It happens; see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prithvilus willardi. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seem? Based on what? The article is from 2012. This book from 2008 cites DE. 2.34.244.101 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting. Yup, that's earlier. But in any case, when it comes to species names, it's the scientific literature and not guitar catalogues that are the reliable sources; and there's no mention in the former. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that a guitar book is may not be a reliable source for biology but this does appear to be a reliable source for guitars. This is a guitar article not a biology article and the article can be edited to make that abundantly clear. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Malaysian blackwood and clarify that Diospyros ebonasea is not a bona fide species. ~Kvng (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yup, ideally with a redirect from DE. By the way, the genus Diospyros belongs to the Ebenaceae family, which suggests how the snafu came about. Still, the usage is now common. 188.216.192.3 (talk) 12:46, 7 June 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) 07:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be an item of misinformation that has circulated amongst guitar makers. Whilst they may have expertise in that field, I do not credit them for expertise in botany. There is no indication that I can find that the authors of the guitar-making books and suchlike pointed to are also qualified in botany. So, after looking for anything confirming this and finding nothing beyond inexpert sources, I agree with the other editors here that there is no support for any such species. It is certainly not in the dictionary of Malaysian timbers which is at least the quality of source that is needed here.

    The problem is that

    balau (an article that we do not have, despite the colour), listed by the Malaysian Timber Council, a trade federation that cites its scientific sources, at balau; or, as seems the likliest candidate to me, Kayu Malam (kayu malam) which is what the MTC lists (Kayu Malam) as the common name for ebonies in the genus Diospyros family Ebenaceae as claimed based upon unreliable sourcing to be "Malaysian blackwood" here.

    The people selling this stuff seem to know the science, or at least can point to it, and the names. The people buying it seem not to know their onions, or indeed woods.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • Delete There is no trace of actual scientific proof this is a real plant, so this article clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia or any Wiktionary. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:09, 19 June 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 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xaraya

AfDs for this article:
Xaraya (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)

Still not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 09:25, 11 June 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) 16:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hutchings

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

This artist appears not to have received sufficient independent and in-depth coverage to pass

WP:NARTIST. The most in-depth thing here is a blog interview [32], to which I would assign little weight. The rest is passing mentions or material that is published by himself or associates/associated bodies. - BTW, what does appear notable on its own strength (but does not yet have an article) is The Invisible War: A Tale on Two Scales, which he illustrated. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:SIGCOV of his life or works and it's not clear that he has had major roles in multiple substantial projects. The limited coverage around him and The Invisible War is just not enough to get him over this bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 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) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Gibson

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

The subject does not seem to satisfy

WP:BIO. Current mayors of surrounding Sydney councils do not have wiki entries. Final reference is broken, remaining 2 references from a single source. Link to web site is broken. Content too brief, only two sentences. Mayoral incumbency info is already available at North Sydney Council. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 07:14, 11 June 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) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PHP JSON Parser

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

Not notable Clnreee (talk) 07:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 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. A few undisputed sources that were offered late in the discussion carry this to a keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pauw

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

Article is mostly about her father, with a good chunk of the text an exact match from the article about her father. An outside search brings up no

WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep it looks like theres more here, the reason for notability may be hidden away at the end "His widow had been married to him for 22 years, and wrote a biography of him that was published in 1943, three years after her death.” The article needs cleanup but it also seems like a rough translation from various Afrikaans wiki pages so thats to be expected. I'd suggest a stay of execution but whether or not the subject will eventually meet WP:GNG appears to be up in the air.

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:45, 11 June 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 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Singh (Politician)

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

I don't see him as politician yet he is the son of MLA, himself he is not MLA nor MP fails

WP:POLOUTCOMES Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 04:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why would multiple Indian media report on his change of party affiliation? He does not appear to hold elected office, and I cannot tell if he has run for office in the past. I am reluctant to |vote on an article with references from three reliable sources when I don't understand why these three media outlets think he's important enough to write about. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of the sources verifies that his political role was as youth president of his hometown's local chapter of a political party. This is not an
    blogs, not established reliable source media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 11 June 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 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Mlambo

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist. Subject has not competed in tier one promotion and fails

talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 04:22, 11 June 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. Meets WP:SK#1: Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete arguments

(non-admin closure) CThomas3 (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

ReMarkable

ReMarkable (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)

Company fails

WP:TNT mess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced stub. The in depth sources now include:
    WP:GNG. The article includes both content on the company and on its namesake products. Could separation/detail between either be improved, sure!, all articles have room for improvement. But deletion is not rewrite, so keep it! XavierItzm (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @XavierItzm: You are still missing the point - their tablet may be notable, but the company is not. The sources you mention review the tablet, not the company. If you or anyone else wants to rewrite it as a tablet article, I'll likely withdraw this. But the article, currently, is about the company (with tablet info thrown in), and the company fails at notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, unfortunately, it is you who is misunderstanding policy. Deletion is not improvement. You could have moved the article or you could have re-structured the article, which, granted, like all Wikipedia entries, has room for improvement. Yet you insist on deleting an article which clearly passes the
WP:RS. Not cool. XavierItzm (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I have little love lost for spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did quick and dirty rewrite changing article subject from the company to its product. The article seems to be still somewhat promotional, but notability should not be an issue now (eg. I found this review in the German ct magazine: [33] and another quite big review on golem.de [34]). Pavlor (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Rewrite by Pavlor addresses the issue. Thank you. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose that the result ought to be:
The result was speedy keep. Per 
WP:SK#1
, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected.
cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 07:22, 11 June 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. Seems like the consensus is that GNG is not met - the keep arguments on that point are vague - so NACTOR is the only guideline that could justify the inclusion (under

WP:N a topic can meet either to allow for inclusion). It seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether the NACTOR guideline is met, as they have starred in several notable works but they are not necessarily well covered. I don't see a policy-based reason for preferring one side of that argument over the other, so this is a no consensus. With respect to Wikipedia:Too soon, that's an essay, so it would not necessarily override NACTOR based arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Sandile Mahlangu

Sandile Mahlangu (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)

WP:NACTOR
.

Evaluation of the sources provided:

  1. [35] is an interview on a local news site.
  2. [36] is an ok amount of coverage, but the source is unreliable per the disclosure on the source's terms and conditions page saying thebar makes no representations or warranties, whether express, implied in law or residual, as to the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, data and/or content contained on the website.

The rest of the sources are mere mentions signed, Rosguill talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: subject has played significant lead roles on two television series that air on notable TV channels [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], view and has played lead on a film alongside
    XfD. [reply
    ]
    Ceethekreator, that guideline says multiple notable films, television shows.... From my count, you've mentioned two TV series and one movie, which means that even if each of them were notable (which does not appear to be the case) we'd be barely scraping the guideline. signed, Rosguill talk 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTV guidelines. All the TV shows mentioned air on national television channels, SABC 1, Mzansi Magic and e.tv. Ceethekreator (talk
)
Notability is demonstrated first and foremost by coverage in reliable sources. At any rate, looking at the article, I see three roles that at a glance look significant, one of which hasn't been released yet. This is a case of TOOSOON. If Mahlangu stars in an additional film or two, then I think NACTOR #1 will be more clearly satisfied. signed, Rosguill talk 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Entertainer #1 is satisfied for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", apart from the Television shows and film. The subject has also been featured in several major TV commercials. (KFC, Debonairs Pizza, Halls, Sunbet International, Cell C and Stimorol). Ceethekreator (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is a well-known actor in South Africa, playing on major television channels. A quick Google search did reveal several credible news sources discussing the subject and his roles. Ash Glover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hashmanza, could you share some examples? I have no intention of arguing for deletion if there's RS coverage lying around, but I genuinely could not find any when I searched online. signed, Rosguill talk 03:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. I checked out the sources and they unfortunately are mostly passing mentions and/or local or puff pieces and nothing shows that he meets
    WP:TOOSOON I feel. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I checked out the sources are unreliable, I think this is a case of
    WP:TOOSOON- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:51, 16 June 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. The arguments made by Pirhayati (talk · contribs) convince me the bookshop is notable. I have added an {{Expand Persian}} template to the article accordingly. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toranjestan Soroush

Toranjestan Soroush (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)

Notability? Not here. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the article on enWiki is threadbare, the Farsi-language article linked to it has several sources that appear to discuss the subject in detail. Machine translations are very poor, however, so I'll defer to editors who can actually read the sources if they disagree. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as I noticed the Farsi article, an ordinary store on the street is unlikely to pass notability unless there is certain notable events linked to it. I'm inclined to delete until someone could inform me as to how this store is unlike the rest. Viztor (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toranjestan is notable because it is a pioneer in its models in bookselling. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pirhayati, would you care to elaborate? Viztor (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, the references say it is a successful model in bookselling in Iran, for example this and this. This is important because there is an economic crisis in book market in Iran and bookstores are getting closed one after another. Second, this bookstore simply has "independent reliable references with significant coverage" then it is notable according to GNG.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:42, 18 June 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. Consensus here appears to be that the awards do not satisfy the

WP:ANYBIO significance criteria. And the sources offered were either not presented at all or have been argued to be inadequate with little opposition. Thus, delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Chanel Santini

Chanel Santini (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 ENT and GNG. Awards are no longer a substitute for sourcing

Spartaz Humbug! 18:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: the Google News link above turns up several articles, though Santini is not the main subject of them. -sche (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At least two sources with decent coverage of her.[43][44] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a lack.of depth to those articles. We don't aggregate lots of weak sources to make up for the lwck.of really strong sources.
      Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Even though I disagree with your assessment of depth,
WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" It's like you don't have any experience writing content on here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Under what policy is that argument founded!? PORNBIO has been eliminated and the award does not meet ENT. Do you have anything to passGNG?
Spartaz Humbug! 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I've read in ANYBIO that a person could be notabile if he/she has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. In my humble opinion, the XBIZ Award for "Performer of the Year" is a well known and significant award in this field. Westmanurbe (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What RS backup is there suggesting this is a "well-known or significant" award? I can't find any coverage reporting on anyone winning this award, ever. – Levivich 23:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominators correct analysis - Awards aren't replacements for sources - I'm unable to find anything of notability beyond the usual SELF-PUBLISHED drivel, Fails ENT & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 19:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the lack of sources in the article, in which the information provided is quite small. About the awards, not all of them are the same, and, always in my humble opinon, a person who won the title of "Performer of the Year" at the XBIZ Awards 2018, XBIZ Awards 2019 and AVN Awards 2019, like Santini did, colud be relevant according ANYBIO, having received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several time. Westmanurbe (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This argument has repeatedly been rejected by consensus. Niche or specialized awards like "Girl-Girl Performer of the Year" and "BBW Performer of the Year" or the equivalent have been found to fail the "well-known/significant" standard. In addition, most (at least) XBiz Awards fail the significant prong of the test, since XBiz is a public relations business and has admitted (even touted) the fact that nominations for its awards are controlled by its clients. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:18, 17 June 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 Ohio#Earthquakes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Eastlake earthquake

2019 Eastlake earthquake (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)

Unremarkable event Dawnseeker2000 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:48, 11 June 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_June_11&oldid=1142613778"