Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2 June 4 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela St. John

Pamela St. John (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 categorically fails to meet

WP:GNG. I probably should've used a PROD, but I figured I'd err on the side of caution and give it a fair shake here in case I inexplicably missed something. TheTechnician27 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:24, 3 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. The consensus is to delete. North America1000 02:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Miles McCarter

Melissa Miles McCarter (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)

Author for whom I could find no evidence of meeting

WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. Current sources are either not RS, not independent, or not offering significant coverage of her. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jennmorris1: What are the reliable sources which discuss her? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
significant coverage. Other sources are by McCarter herself or otherwise not RS. The best of this lot is the Daily Journal but that looks to be too small of a newspaper to impute notability. But I do have a much better understanding of why you found her notable even if I don't agree so thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NAUTHOR is the relevant notability guideline. I don't think it's contentious to say that McCarter fails to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NAUTHOR, but that's not necessarily where the discussion ends. Per the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." To remove some ambiguity, the terms in that statement are defined more specifically (see GNG, linked above). While my argument above was for the original article, I'm still in agreement with @Barkeep49: about this subject's lack of notability, and hence I still vote Delete. For starters, as they are unequivocally not independent, McCarter's articles in the HuffPost do not constitute or contribute to notability. You also added to the article: "Her writing and research on mental illness and postfeminism is referenced in a number of academic and non-academic sources", followed by two sources making passing reference to McCarter; passing references again do not constitute or contribute to notability. This article and this article from local online news outlets are about a TV show, not about McCarter. And then we're back to where we were when I made that comment above: three articles from local online news outlets (seen here, here, and here) does not a notable subject make. As an aside, you note that you've seen other articles with fewer references. There are two factors at play here: the first is that quality is almost entirely superior to quantity for notability as far as references go; the second is that those articles you've seen may also not be notable – with almost 6 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, things slip through the cracks. TheTechnician27 (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

@Barkeep49: I think perhaps my opinion on the notability comes fr my seeing references to her work in various websites, podcasts, and academic articles I’ve read that mention her, I could work on finding more but I see Wikipedia articles with a lot less references! The STL Dispatch article mentions her community work and I’ve seen reference to it in Facebook posts, websites that aren’t “reliable” but do make it clear it has meaning to the residents there. Plus the Southeast Missourian isn’t small or local newspaper. I think the problem I’m having is explaining the notability of someone who is has contributed to my (albeit narrow) narrow field of disability studies and postfeminist thought. I noticed there is a list of Huffington Post contributors, would she be relevant there?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've both convinced me (along with my own determined search to find something worthy of being deemed as a
talk) 09:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Incidentally, the heading of the "Books" section is somewhat exaggerated. Both A Small Book of Wisdom and Earthquakes are only 24 pages long, have no ISBN numbers and are only published as free Kindle editions. The 130 page novella What Moves Her is likewise available for free on Kindle. McCarter is the editor, not the author, of the anthology Joy, Interrupted. Her short memoir Insanity: A Love Story does get c.120 words devoted to it in the "Resources" section of Living with Bipolar Disorder: A Handbook for Patients and Their Families published by McFarland (currently used as a reference), but that simply isn't enough. That book was (self)published 10 years ago, and if it had made any kind of impact, lasting or otherwise, there should be multiple sources like that one. There aren't. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom and the reasoning of
    other stuff exists is often repeated on Wikipedia, because it may be true, but is usually never a good argument at AFD. Silence does not mean there are not issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: The great majority of references are to content the subject of the article has written rather than to content about her. As noted above, books are self-published. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jennmorris1, TheTechician explains a lot of my thinking above. But I will address one element they did not. Wikipedia has a hard time in thinking through notability of people in smaller fields. This is because drawing the distinction between small and niche is hard. Notable in a small field is probably enyclopedic. Notable in a niche field is probably not. In both these cases finding reliable sources to establish this notability is extremely challenging and because of our reliance on such sources we probably do not have coverage of some people who are as least as notable as certain Children's authors (to pick my own editing area) for whom we can and do have articles. In this case, there are certainly RS around disability studies and postfeminist thought and so someone who is notable for their intersection should have some significant coverage from those RS. In this case the coverage is more passing than significant. I hope that's helpful and that you do stick around Wikipedia despite what must be a frustrating experience here as there are likely to be some existing articles which could benefit from your expertise and editorial attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just saw this article is up for deletion and I appreciate the in depth discussion and recognize both the reasons for and against deleting it. I just want to say I have no objection to it being deleted if it doesn’t meet any of the standards. I’m not sure what draftify it means and @jenmorris seems to be saying she needs it for some class related and I saw a good suggestion to make a copy offline, but also maybe show this discussion? The issue of what is notable is an interesting rhetorical discussion in itself, what establishes ethos - which clearly self-published works lacks in this particular context, self-promotion being a major limitation to self-publishing, that notability can’t be established by off line or non-mainstream sources (academic conferences/smaller journals are woefully underrepresented online, often with broken links and aren’t maintained). As time goes by, google evolves and links go by the wayside. I’ve seen things I’ve researched that clearly had a presence 10 years ago not be on the web even though they are still discussed and cited off line! But I guess that’s one of the special considerations, Wikipedia isn’t a lexicon or encyclopedia of life, but of what is verifiable online. I think this exercise in debate does show the rhetorical considerations of notability, which is a good lesson itself to someone in that field. Like suggested, perhaps it will inspire further discussion of ethos and notability that can be of future use to @jenmorris and anyone else who is concerned - thanks @lissahoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissahoop (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the chance that "links go by the wayside" would be a good reason to archive them. Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 I agree with you. But that is a challenge when links that could establish reliability aren’t archived. I know that is one of the reasons in the study of history that things are uncovered - information that doesn’t seem notable or relevant at a certain time is then important later on when it’s uncovered in research. What is obscure for one period can be highly important for a later one. (And can also fall out of fashion). But I imagine it’s not the purpose of Wikipedia to predict what information will be relevant and so you can’t archive everything in anticipation that it might. I think the wikipedia definition of what is considered for notable - part of which is to be enduring - is interesting. I’m not sure that knowledge or information is always enduring and what endures is often the result of a paradigm that is particular to a time period, matrix of power, and belief systems. And when that paradigm shifts, what endures can change. For example, women voices in prior centuries are being uncovered because of paradigm shifts valuing them in ways they weren’t before. They weren’t deemed notable or enduring. Anyway that’s a tangent. I do wonder if there is a way to go back to earlier periods of time of the World Wide Web to see those links that weren’t archived. Like a snapshot in time. Thanks for food for thought. Jennmorris1 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)jennmorris1[reply]

I’ve been reading the Wikipedia article on notability and have a clearer understanding. What’s frustrating is when links that establish notability are no longer there in a google search (even google scholar or google books aren’t permanent). It’s also frustrating when relevant links get pushed down so that researching a subject can be misleading or too time consuming. You almost have to know what you are looking for to find it. When I started out on the internet, Yahoo! categorized information and that provided an organization that was helpful for research. But now google or other search engines are like a mass of information with no rhyme or reason. The google algorithm often prioritizes information in a way that can be hard to conduct research. It would be nice if something like the that type of Yahoo! directory still existed. I think then there could be an enduring categorized archive that didn’t necessarily have to meet the notable standards of Wikipedia. An organized capsule of information. Lissahoop (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Lissahoop[reply]
  • Lissahoop and Jennmorris1, just a quick answer to a couple of your points, as deletion discussions are meant to remain tightly focused and not to veer off into general philosophical issues about Wikipedia, academia, search engines etc.
1. There is a way to look back into many, many sites/web pages which are no longer online, and to preserve the ones which are. I suggest you read Wayback Machine for an introduction, if you are not already familiar with it. Wikipedia uses it quite extensively for restoring "lost" references.
2. Journals or books which are offline /behind a paywall are acceptable as references, provided the reference has complete bibliographic information and the book or journal itself is considered a reliable source. However, to establish the notability of a subject, those sources must discuss the subject in significant depth, not simply a passing mention of him or her or listing in a bibliography.
3. This deletion discussion will be preserved here. All AfD discussions are preserved whether or not the actual article is deleted or sent to draft space ("draftified"). If you would like to continue this general discussion you've both started, I suggest you use Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Melissa Miles McCarter. I would be happy to continue it with you there.
Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a matter of record, there is no evidence that this is a stressful process to anyone involved and it’s a weird presumption that just because a person has written about past experiences with bipolar disorder that they would find this process stressful. If this needs to be deleted based on consensus and reasonable argument, that’s fine. But please don’t do it under the guise that further discussion would somehow cause stress. In my opinion, this has been a very interesting discussion that revealed the inner workings of Wikipedia. Hopefully no one who has commented here has found it stressful or an impediment to a calm or productive life. I know this is off topic but I thought it was important to address the concern that a polite and interesting discussion would lead anyone, whether having written about personal experiences, to be stressed out so it would interfere with his or her private life. And maybe since this discussion will be preserved, it will be useful record to help others understand in detail the reasoning behind various Wikipedia guidelines and intents. Lissahoop (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Lissahoop[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 21:50, 7 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) 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zonayed Saki

Zonayed Saki (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)

Candidate for a mayoral position does not meet

WP:NPOL, coverage available online seems to all be routine election coverage. I was unable to search in relevant languages other than English, so Bengali speakers' input would be appreciated. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 3 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) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It Happened 'That Night'

It Happened 'That Night' (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)

Another episode in a franchise series. Episode 48. How is this notable enough for an article. I'm not seeing the

WP:RS that justifies this... --David Tornheim (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Please also see a similar article from same series I simultaneously submitted for deletition: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In_the_Eye_Abides_the_Heart --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
Mrschimpf: Not seeing any RS issues. Of the the 3 references in the article, which do you think meet the notability requirements? Looks like very trivial coverage to me insufficient to justify an article. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:38, 4 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) 01:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Eye Abides the Heart

In the Eye Abides the Heart (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)

Do we really need an article on a single episode of

WP:RS cited. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Please also see a similar article from same series I simultaneously submitted for deletition: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It_Happened_'That_Night' --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS
sufficient for inline citations and/or notability:
That is half of the citations for the article. I'm very much looking forward to hearing why you think these are high quality reliable sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I assume your vote is delete? Could you take a look another similar article I simultaneously voted for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It_Happened_'That_Night'. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:13, 5 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) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olawoyin Olasunkanmi

Olawoyin Olasunkanmi (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 clear evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:05, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Malkawi

Ali Malkawi (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)

Per

WP:MASK), we delete this article in Arabic Wikipedia (Per A7). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Terry Kyan

Terry Kyan (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:CREATIVE. No awards or media coverage to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:06, 3 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) 19:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colter Johnson

AfDs for this article:
Colter Johnson (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)

Recently created autobiography fails

talk) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I just realized an earlier incarnation of this article was deleted through the AfD process already.
talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:07, 3 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) 19:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyan Laslett O'Brien

Kyan Laslett O'Brien (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:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:09, 3 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) 19:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Hamilton

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

Previously kept because of much laxer standards a decade ago. Fails GNG and ENT

Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:19, 3 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) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aswar Rahman

Aswar Rahman (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)

It cites three substantive articles about his abortive long-shot run for mayor of Minneapolis.[3][4][5]

WP:GNG
says, "Significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article."

It has been tagged for notability for two years, and when an IP tried to remove the tag, a third editor restored it with the summary, "needs significant secondary coverage outside mayoral race to establish notability, see

WP:POLOUTCOMES
), but each should be discussed on their own merits.

He is also a filmmaker, but has made no notable films. The only coverage is an interview, him talking about his work and his organization, Cineapolis.[6] After the mayor's race he received a light dusting of coverage for acting in the 4-episode cable reality series Welcome to Waverly.[7][8][9]

DiderotTerra17 took several days to create this article. Some editors are loathe to delete another's hard work, but it should be noted that their original user name was Aswar314, suggesting that this is either an

autobiography or ghost written by his campaign staff, so their effort may not have had Wikipedia's best interests at heart. I don't see what he has accomplished that would be encyclopedia worthy. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:00, 3 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) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenteal

AfDs for this article:
Jenteal (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)

Kept during the bad bad days of PORNBIO but this falls way short of ENT and GNG.

Spartaz Humbug! 18:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:18, 3 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. Clearly this was a mistaken nomination and therefore withdrawn.

Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Lisa Marie Abato

Lisa Marie Abato (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)

Single.Source not enough for GNG and fails ENT.

Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
More evidence that there were more than one source writing about her. [12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are joking. The only biographical information in the second source, which is very short is "Ryder, whose real name is Lisa Maria Abata, had starred in more than 200 triple-X movies before forming the commission." That's clearly not enough to count the source towards notability.
Spartaz Humbug! 04:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Third source is .also short as is mostly quotations so.not independant. Frankly all the coverage is her foundation and that's probably where any article should be.
Spartaz Humbug! 04:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Ryder. "Under her legal name, Lisa Marie Abato," "Ryder" was one of the best-known anti-porn activists in the U.S. Abato and her activities were covered in major media outlets like the Chicago Tribune[13] and the Los Angeles Times[14], commented on in The New York Times[15], discussed in the State Bar of California's official journal [16], and cited in social science books [17]. Newsbank search also turns up coverage in, inter alia, the San Francisco Examiner, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Washington Times, the Boston Herald, the Tampa Tribune, the Sacramento Bee and others. Not notable as a porn performer, but clears the GNG by a significant margin." The consensus at that AFD to keep, rename, and redirect was sound. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep per the significant secondary source coverage in major news found by Hullaballoo. Subject is a significant anti-porn activist. As a former actress in adult film the subject's notability is not from that period in life. The diminished PORNBIO policy does not apply here
    ☎) 19:05, 5 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) 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Skye

AfDs for this article:
Brooke Skye (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)

BLP1E and a case that never came to.court is no basis to write a BLP. Previous AFD cites pornbio but its now gone and otherwise fails ANY and ENT

Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 3 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) 19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Richter

AfDs for this article:
Vicki Richter (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 without sources no longer cut the mustard.

Spartaz Humbug! 18:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: I didn't spot anything relevant via Google Books or News; Scholar turns up one paper which discusses this person among others, which is this one. -sche (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 3 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) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Parent Support

Coalition of Parent Support (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, and no references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 02:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The Snakes (psychobilly band)

The Snakes (psychobilly 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)

Article is probably an attempted

routine listings and self-promotions in social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not also known as the Meteors, as the third paragraph of the Biography section says they played WITH the Meteors. See also
verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 6 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) 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Black (EP)

Into the Black (EP) (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 claim of importance, no coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 3 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. Transwiki to wiktionary should be requested at

WP:REFUND; the consensus here seems to be that this topic doesn't have enough "substance" to make a wiki article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Black Day (Nepal)

Black Day (Nepal) (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 article reads like a list of multiple so-called black days that are observed as national/widely observed annual commemorative events. Most of them are just one-off events that were described as such in some news reporting/blogs. Some that were major events are still not shown to be periodic events but a single event/point-making, in the references, but are presented in a misleading way in the article. For example; the disambiguation page that lists this page mentions only the anniversary of promulgation of the constitution(and not half a dozen other black days mentioned in the article); yet the sources cited here report of only the very day of promulgation and no anniversaries thereafter. I don't see any way that it's good enough for wikipedia, yet I can not categorise it as anything. I don't even know what issues to raise. Would editors please look at the content and the references and then discuss this one? Best I can say is, that the article (as it reads and in using common sense) fails verification and as such notability, maybe? It's just weird nonsense to me. Thank you! Usedtobecool (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please pay attention to the reliability/credibility of the sources cited. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial impression is that this should not be deleted. I find it credible that there can be multiple "black days" in Nepal, and a brief perusal of the sources shows the language "black day" applied to multiple tragic events. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's common practice to call "Black day" when something one dislikes happens, at least in South Asia (just google black day news). One group can call a "Black day".That's not the same as a country observing a black day, like an anniversary. And a news report can characterise a tragedy as a black day. That's just a figure of speech. "Black day" is a common phrase of protest/tragedy in South Asia (maybe elsewhere too?). But that's not what this article is about. Black day, here, is akin to Independence day, as far as I can tell. Usedtobecool (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These appear to be events described as "black day"s. These are not officially recognized, recurring occurrences - no black days in Public holidays in Nepal. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - This strikes me as being more appropriate for wiktionary. From reading a batch of articles it seems that during some protests, people have carried small black flags [ref.9] or black armbands, and called for black-outs for an hour. So I think it means something distinct from the English-language usage. It may be a colloquialism but news stories use the term as a proper noun that doesn't require elaboration.
The other use is the same as everywhere else in the world — an allusion to a very bad day — and seems to be used in the Nepalese wiki for a recent, terrible earthquake. A search through ne.wiki for "कालो दिन" came up with three results including also WWI and in the works of a poet. Given potential language issues, and because of
WP:NOTDIC, I don't think it should have a page here but I do think it should have representation within the wiki system. Perhaps some of the page's contents related to the 2015 constitution should be added to that page as there seems to be news coverage of the protests although I didn't see an in-depth description of the issues (but I wasn't looking for one). ogenstein (talk) 03:30, 4 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) 07:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game show (disambiguation)

Game show (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary DAB page. First two entries are not titled Game show, they are a single word. Second two just start with "Game Show" and there is no evidence that they are referred to just as 'game show.' DAB pages are not meant to be a collection of articles which start with a phrase. As such, none of the entries are proper and the DAB pages is unneeded. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
er... where do you get the idea that it’s possible someone would shorten the game show network to game show? It doesn’t make any logical sense to do so. Further you don’t address why it wouldn’t make more sense to move the page to
Gameshow ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The CW Television Network, shortened to
Soul of the South Network, shortened to Soul of the South in this Variety article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 4 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 a procedural close. The article has been moved to Draft space so there is nothing now to discuss. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha dishman

Samantha dishman (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)

Per

WP:BLP Comatmebro (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 3 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. Per Randykitty, and in application of

WP:BLP, unsourced BLP articles cannot be retained. Sandstein 16:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Kendré Berry

Kendré Berry (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 actor. Natg 19 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His coverage (press etc) is limited to some trivial podcasts. Deep significant secondary sources are lacking. But he has been in notable productions, so he seems to meet the first rule of
    WP:ENT. Seems to meet WP:CCSI#ACTOR. HM Wilburt (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'm not sure any of the reoccurring roles he has played in the cited notable productions (Six Feet Under, Girlfriends, Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide) have been important enough to meet
WP:ENT "significant roles" criteria. On Girlfriends, for example, he appears in the last two seasons as the teenage child of a main character, but his presence in the show is intermittent. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The single "keep" !vote sounds more like a delete rationale. The article is basically unsourced, if no in-depth sources establishing notability can be found, the article will be deleted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As noted above, he has indeed appeared in many re-occuring roles on series TV, but none of them are important enough to meet the "significant" standard necessary for
    WP:ENT. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:01, 7 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) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media

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

Fails

WP:NCORP. Zero independent sources in the article, and I'm unable to find any independent Reliable Sources on Google. This "national media firm" is some guy who graduated from college and put up a pair of National Digital Newspapers (aka websites) in 2017. While his web and promotional skills are apparent, Notability can only be conferred by significant coverage of a topic by multiple independent reliable sources. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. 100% agreed on all counts. Furthermore, related articles
    WP:OR. I bring these up only because I have previously encountered a similar network of wiki articles and corresponding sources which as a whole would make the case quite clear and yet, it becomes harder than it should be when each article is taken one at a time. Because, well, we have "national media" like "Kathmandu Tribune" where friends can write puff pieces about each other and exchange favours writing wikipedia articles about each other citing these same "credible media sources", and so on. If editors would look in on all three of these articles, and provide their feedback, I/we could proceed with putting the other two up for discussion as well. Usedtobecool TALK
BTW, Kathmandu Tribune and Nepal Tribune Media were both created by User:Ozar77 and I haven't looked in detail into their contributions. But, Arun Budhathoki was written by User:Dansong22 which is signed 'ArunBudhathoki' on the userpage which seems to make the page an autobiography by a user with an undisclosed COI. Usedtobecool TALK 04:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media is a registered company under Nepal Government Law and some random Nepali guy working against it against cyberlaw and not acceptable too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if legal threats of this nature count as intimidation. Also, don't blank an AfD discussion page, again. It hinders your case more than anything else you can threaten me with. Usedtobecool TALK 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NCORP subject-specific guidelines. If you want to avoid deletion of this article, you need to present a valid argument and/or evidence that Nepal Tribune Media does qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia under the NCORP guideline. Also, it is unclear what "random Nepali guy" you are referring to. I am the one who nominated the article for deletion, and I have never been within four thousand miles of Nepal. I am merely a random editor who works to ensure Wikipedia content complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I came across this article pretty much at random. Alsee (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I've just added Nepal News Network International to the open AfD discussions.
talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) You do realize that saying editors are abusing their rights is not going to help right?LakesideMinersMy Talk Page 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:What wikipedia is not.Usedtobecool TALK 15:27, 4 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. The content has been moved to Draft:Nishat Nawar Salwa. ansh666 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishat Nawar Salwa

Nishat Nawar Salwa (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)

Winner of Miss World Bangladesh is probably notable. Runner up is not. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The keep rationale seems to be "we have many that are as bad, or even worse". DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"a rising actress" has a definite meaning, it means "not yet notable as an actress."
It is claimed above she won Miss World. This is not the case. She did not win even Miss World Bangladesh. She was a runner-up. Only the winner is notable. Had she won, I would not have nominated the article for AfD.
and I agree with the i.p. editor above: "cult following" is a reason to be very careful before accepting notability. If I were closing an afd, I would completely discount any argument that includes this, because it shows no awareness of WP policy. Only policy based arguments count. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources
van be unearthed, this most likely will be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - These citations are awful regardless of how many there are. Celebrity news churn isn't notability. These are trivial mentions, nothing more, e.g. she was named runner-up, she's in a movie yet to be made, she flew to the US (and incidentally, I searched on a NY Bangladesh news site and came up with nothing). Several of the articles merely repeat the same 'news'. The Daily Sun piece looks like it came from an OCR'd copy. [19][24][22] Using ten citations to state that she is getting a role in an upcoming movie doesn't make her a notable actress, nor does using three that mention she was the runner up in a pageant make her notable. First runner-up isn't an award. A seating plan?
WP:TOOSOON Two sentences is not a biography. Give her a chance to actually get her career underway before you try and write it. ogenstein (talk) 06:36, 4 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. Based on the discussion and source analyses here, it appears that the sources presented have not convinced most participants that they are adequate, mostly due to substantiality concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data Design Interactive

AfDs for this article:
Data Design Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Data Design Interactive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unnotable defunct company commonly known for making bad games, thus making future coverage unlikely. The only real source directly concerning the studio refers to the opening of another unnotable office in the U.S.. An older discussion from 2010 opted to keep this revision for some reason, despite being almost entirely unsourced, and not at all about the article's topic.

✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
✉) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

My opinion is that the sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".

Animation World Network says Data Design Interactive "has been churning out top-notch games for some of the industry's most prestigious publishers" and " has earned a reputation as one of the UK's top games developers". It notes that Data Design Interactive has worked for "Sony, Millennium, PSS, Psygnosis, Ocean and Infogrames on projects such as Pegasus Bridge, ROBOCOD, Rise of the Robots and Water World". It notes that Data Design Interactive has developed for "Spectrum, Amstrad, Amiga, Game Boy, PC, Sega Megadrive and, of course, the Playstation". This is significant coverage in reliable sources.

IGN notes about Data Design Interactive's The Kidz Sports Series: "Developer Data Design Interactive made not one, but three horrendously bad sports games geared towards youngsters". It then says about "The rest of Data Design Interactive's Library": "Okay, we don't mean this to be mean, but maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games. We've never seen a developer that spit out so many consistently awful titles in such a short time. Nearly every game we've reviewed under a 3.0 has come from this developer. That is just incredible."

A second IGN article notes "You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." The article then provides an example about Data Design Interactive's hockey game: "it's just offensive with broken motion controls, dumbed-down mechanics and presentation that is literally cut-and-pasted from other Data Design products".

The Gamer noted that Data Design Interactive is "Infamous for copying level designs wholesale from their previous titles, slapping a new coat of paint on them, and declaring them to be entirely new games". It says Anubis II is "a total reskin of Ninja Breadman, Rock n’ Roll Adventures, and Trixie in Toyland", which were also created by Data Design Interactive. It notes that Data Design Interactive shuttered in 2012 because of insolvency.

There is enough material about Data Design Interactive's reputation and practices (positive material from Animation World Network and negative material from IGN, The Gamer, and Engadget) to allow it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is bearly enough content for ten sentences, let alone an entire article. "Detail" is usually more than three sentences on a subject per source.
✉) 09:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Ref 1 and 3 and press releases, 2 is already in the article, ref 4 is the same as this, which is also already in the article. And yes, I've been looking for sources. I have been looking out for such since 2016, and the lack of in-depth sources makes the non-notability of this company pretty obvious. If you'd check the article for a second, you'll see that I already incorporated the above sources that apparently assert the topic's notability, and it is still a way-too-short stub.
✉) 15:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage given is sufficient to prove notability. Also the number of blue links in the list of games they created that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. A writer is notable for their books, a musician is notable for their songs, and a game company is notable for its games. Dream Focus 17:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
✉) 17:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You should read that essay more closely. You don't get notability for being related to someone. It also reads: "That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)". So while all the games they made aren't notable just because the company is, the company is notable for what it creates. Just as all the books a notable writer makes don't inherit notability, the author is judged by their notable works to determine their own notability. Dream Focus 17:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inheritence works both ways. Please take a look at the current state of the article, it is merely a few introductory sentences, and then a full-on
✉) 17:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"the company is notable for what it creates" What notability guideline are you basing this on? The closest exception to the
WP:AUTHOR, which is for people and for significant influential works, not a few random video games. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
✉) 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
1.This is a great source and by far the best of the bunch which would meet the criteria. However, majority of this significant coverage relates to developing a notable game Lego Rock Raiders (video game).
2."Data Design Interactive made horrible games" and "maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games" does not constitute as
WP:SIGCOV
.
3."You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." is not
WP:SIGCOV
.
4.Passing mention in another IGN's attack against Data Design Interactive.
5.Name drops in a paragraph about the game they developed is certainly not enough.
6."Rinde was in Europe when he found out that Data Design Interactive was looking for a company to publish its games in America, a role that Destineer eventually filled." Not
WP:SIGCOV. Maybe in Wonderland
.
Catfish 1. Press release as obvious by the way of writing.
Catfish 2. Another press release.
Catfish 3. Press release #3.
Catfish 4. Release in press...oh wait. It's not! But too bad, "Having secured developer status for Wii, Data Design Interactive has announced details of its titles heading to Nintendo's innovative console." along with a list of their games is not enough to be counted for
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:55, 9 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) 02:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currencies Direct

Currencies Direct (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 an advertisement. Has been tagged for notability for two years without improvement. Substantially written by promotional editors. Negligible sourcing. This has never been a good article, and shows no prospects for improvability. PROD removed with the sole comment

WP:NOTCLEANUP - but the only source is a puff piece in a non-RS. There's no evidence of actual notability. Can anyone produce any? I'd be delighted to be shown wrong ... David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finder barely for editorial content, all the others not. It's unclear from the thing at the top how independent that page actually is - David Gerard (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng, are you seriously suggesting that any of those are actual independent reliable sources? Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is nothing more than crufty business nonsense. There is almost nothing in the way of SIGCOV, everything I can find are press releases or otherwise not coverage in published, reliable sources (no, reviews on other business sites don't count anymore than a Yelp review would.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 10 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. Consensus exists that the article's sources establish

(non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Intellectual dark web

AfDs for this article:
Intellectual dark web (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)

Best discuss this time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual dark web has many "keep" votes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the term has proved its persistance and is not going away any time soon. We have for example this May 22, 2019 article in the The Chronicle of Higher Education.[24] and this April 4th article takes the IDW as its central focus examining its political makeup.[25], and couple more from April.[26][27] The number of articles mentioning the term has grown a lot since previous discussions. The merge solution is not very suitable as Weinstein is not the most promenent person associated with the movement. There is a lot of material which would be appropriate for a separate article but is not suitable for the Eric Weinstein article.
I also disagree quite strongly with User:Sandstein closure of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web. In it the large number of references are dismissed mearly as opinion pieces. But we have NYT article which had the entire weight of the paper thrown behind the article, there were interviews with the major player and photoshoots, it was much more than a simple think piece. And what are we trying to prove here the notability of the article, an opinion piece strenthens that claim. Sandstein set the bar much higher that is applied to most other articles. --Salix alba (talk): 16:39, 3 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. And salted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Supratim Akaash Paul

Dr. Supratim Akaash Paul (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. The award is just enough to avoid A7 but does not confer anything like sufficient notability. Sources are articles in which he appears as a rent-a-quote, they are not about him and do not cover him in any depth whatsoever. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt; no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and a possible violation of Terms of Use and COI guidelines. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:09, 3 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. bd2412 T 03:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L'albatros (poem)

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

move to wikisource. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had properly followed
WP:BEFORE, you would have noticed there is 1910 results on google scholar, including [28]. Comte0 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's already present twice on the french wikisource. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's no great shakes in its current state but its place in national French education curriculum alone suggests notability. This is only furthered by the sourcing present in the French article. This article could be expanded into meaningful and useful encyclopedic content and as such should not be moved to a sister project at the expense of an article here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis page as of now is obvious only suitable for Wikisource, if you think it should be kept, well, then rewrite it. If someone else is interested to write an actual introduction about the poem, they can still create it. Viztor (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lead now re-written and referenced, there are virtually 100s of sources to pick from, including a full treatment by
    WP:BEFORE. Sam Sailor 10:04, 10 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) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Gabrielle

Jesse Gabrielle (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 does not meet

WP:NHOCKEY. Only 25 games played in the AHL and 200 minimum is needed to pass criteria #2. No notable preeminent honours to pass #3 (I seriously doubt AIHL All-Star Game counts) since the Australian League isn't listed). Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 3 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. There's clearly no consensus here to delete this outright, which is mostly what AfD is concerned about. Additional discussions about possibly merging or otherwise reorganizing this and related articles can continue on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean spelling alphabet

Korean spelling alphabet (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 here. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AceVPN

AceVPN (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 borderline when it comes to

WP:NSOFT - few mentions in passing, and two decent reviews: [29] and [30]. On article's talk, User:Djm-leighpark expressed concerns about the quality of the second review, and all other sources are worse. I agree that it is probably on the wrong line of NSOFT unless better sources are found? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: As far as I can tell through dead links and spam attackers my good faith view is the links to Turkey are tenuous and likely overblown. As seems to be usual for VPNs this goto site seems to offer a comphrenesive [31] review. Similar precedents come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gom VPN; the former being retained after a significant rewrite improvement and the latter deleted. The are from eighty to over 400 VPN providers .... very unique differentiator(s) or a large number of servers (one thousand range) are probably needed for interest in notability. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Nirali Kartik

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

Doesn't fit in

WP:GNG, few news articles with trivial mentions, but no signs of significant contribution to the field. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weedon Pinkney Priory

Weedon Pinkney Priory (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)

Very little information on page and lacking references Willbb234 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 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) 19:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Opoku

Erick Opoku (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 article was PRODed with the rationale "Unable to find any reliable sources that verify these claims. Links given are broken or do not mention him. There is another Eric Opoku who played with the national under-17 team but he does not have the nickname Diego. I suspect this is made up, like the author's other articles." The next day, the article's author removed the PROD and added more material. But the PROD rationale still stands - there are no sources in the article that even mention him, and I can find no evidence of him other than a Facebook account that might be him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article because two reason, first it's not notable itself and second the lack of enough reliable sources that cover the subject.Forest90 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no idea what to do with this. There are a number of sources which actually do mention an Erick Opoku playing for Dynamos [32] [33] [34] [35] There's also a mention of the possible other Erick Opoku here [36]. Other references I've found, though not necessarily passing GNG, include [37] and [38], but I'm not sure if it's about the same footballer. Further complicating things is it appears "Eric Opoku" is also a soccer journalist and the regional minister of Brong-Ahafo region, but "Eric Opoku" clearly exists per Soccerway. I have no idea what to do with this, but I think we have to delete for now even though there's some level of verification with the Zimbabwe press reports. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This one is like a puzzle, you have to analyze both possibilities: that Eric Opoku and Erick Opoku are one and the same, a single Ghanian footballer who played in the
    WP:GNG. In sum, neither Eric nor Erick Opoku meet GNG, but Eric Opoku meets NFOOTY (via Soccerway and other refs put forward here), while Erick Opoku does not. – Levivich 05:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 06:14, 4 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) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmbax

Tmbax (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)

Probably a candidate for A7 speedy, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt that there is some claim to significance buried in here. Nevertheless, clearly does not meet

WP:MUSIC. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:45, 3 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) 19:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual studio

AfDs for this article:
Virtual studio (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)

Suggest merging to another topic or deleting. There's no source added since 2010.

I can't find sources talking about the term "virtual studio."

ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Google, Google News. And add the sources to the article? --
ping me) 09:42, 4 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. No clear rationale for merging a list of non notable players into the club article when a link to the category is preferable in terms of maintaining balance in the article. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All-time K-W United FC roster

All-time K-W United FC roster (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 parent article

WP:LISTPEOPLE as the vast majority of names included do not meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. This topic is better suited for a category (Category:K-W United FC players) in my opinion. BLAIXX 11:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 11:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full of redlinks unlikely to ever be filled out. Plus we don't even give a presumption of notability for players at this level, I fail to see how a collection of these players is notable enough to necessitate this article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 06:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete –

K-W United FC article (which is a proper list, limited to notable former players, and in the proper place). – Levivich 06:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Support considering redirect as a part of this AfD, seems uncontroversial and the outcome would presumably be the same. Jay eyem (talk) 02:27, 7 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) 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Nyathi

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

Promotional article with dubious claims to fame. Some mentions of him and interviews but not notable and fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 3 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Milin Dokthian

Milin Dokthian (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 pass the notability criteria for

musicians. She has no personal work outside the band, the roles she has in films, tv shows, etc, are all minor, she has no significant contribution in any entertainment field, and thus she has no established notability that warrants a stand-alone article for her, unlike her fellow member Cherprang Areekul. So, her article is proposed to be deleted (or redirected to List of BNK48 members). Miwako Sato (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:51, 3 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) 02:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Byrd (guitarist)

James Byrd (guitarist) (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 guitarist that fails

WP:Promo. It was speedy deleted 10 years ago under the title James byrd musician Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:52, 3 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) 08:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leadstart Publishing Pvt Ltd

Leadstart Publishing Pvt Ltd (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:NORG. The only source (from the Business Standard newspaper) on closer inspection appears to be not actually written by Business Standard: its just a copy of a press release from the organization itself. A googling turned up only mentions of the company in comments on articles about books or publishing in India in general, or other copies of the same press release. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Does not meet
    WP:GNG. Couldn't find anything about the company except for the most trivial mentions, e.g. being identified as the publisher of a book. Routine notices such as the referenced funding are not significant or notable. ogenstein (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I should add that the page's purpose seems to be blatant
WP:PROMO. ogenstein (talk) 06:48, 4 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. Sandstein 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Klarskov

Denice Klarskov (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)

Extrabladet is a tabloid and not an RS. Everything else is very short coverage of a porn performer presenting a radio show for one week. In no way does this pass GNG or ENT

Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]
EB is a tabloid not just in size but also in terms of being yellow press.
Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You know this how? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lived in Denmark for 4 years. Was able to read enough of the press to know what was news and what was scandle/gossip rag. @
Spartaz Humbug! 15:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
What sources do you think pass gng and why do you think they pass?
Spartaz Humbug! 15:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Most of the references are fairly trite, and as previously pointed out, tabloid fare. Searches through news come up with these and similar results. A couple of them used the exact same verbiage. She probably isn't completely typical of others in her industry in that she has her own company, and has appeared in some other types of shows but do these things make her notable? We still have the problem of not being able to have a meaningful biography despite these myriad sources. ogenstein (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles comes up far short of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets
    WP:RS, there's the TV2 documentary, and there are yet more out there (here's one about whether her Wikipedia article lists her correct weight or not, LOL, I think they have a point: why was weight in the article? Is she like a boxer that has to meet a certain weight class?). – Levivich 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't think anyone is suggesting that she doesn't exist, just that the type of coverage she receives does not support her having a standalone page. I see some comments as to her meeting
WP:BASIC but when I consider those linked pages, I'm not convinced. The EB piece about her wiki page is trivial. Getting blocked on FB for a month? Less than trivial. TV2 is promoting their product. The three other referenced pieces (6,7,8) all fall under primary accounts and BASIC explicitly states that primary sources can support content but do not contribute to notability. ogenstein (talk) 09:41, 9 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) 01:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Spectroscopic Ellipsometry

International Conference on Spectroscopic Ellipsometry (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 for this conference series. It belongs on wikidata. Wikidata, despite my initial skepticism, does seem to be good for some things, after all, like listings that are just listings. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 3 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. Sandstein 10:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driving to Geronimo's Grave and Other Stories

Driving to Geronimo's Grave and Other Stories (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)

Lonsdale is of course notable. Some of his novels are. Possibly some individual short stories are. But not this particular collection of works, all of which are adequately covered in Joe E. Lonsdale Bibliography--and so is this collection itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
there still is not enough for notability of a specific collection. The reviews are pure routine. The analogy here is the notability of a mixtape. The repackaging of previously published material does not make for separate notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder. "Lansdale brings his East Texas noir style to another dynamite collection of short stories that show off his humor, his range, and his creativity. Although some of these tropes will be familiar to longtime Lansdale readers, every story still feels electric and fresh, bringing something new to the table. And getting Lansdale’s insights into each story after reading it is just icing on the cake. This is marvelous stuff all around." --- doesn't sound like "pure routine" to me. San Francisco Book Review, a proper review conducted with attention and respect. BTW it's Joe R. Lansdale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the stories that may even be individually notable. They have all been published previously. This is just a reprinted collection of them. Are you saying that Lonsdales's individual comments about his own stories are separately notable, for each group of stories that gets reprinted? DGG ( talk )
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - This is a limited run collection and really shouldn't have its own page. The reviews are all perfunctory, and that's not an inherently bad thing — after all, these stories have all been published already. Why would there be a serious review. Given the small print run, it's not like it would really be worth the effort. The verbiage from the SFBR 'review' could be applied to any similar collection. I don't believe anyone read the book (which would apply to any of the several reviews I read). Even had the site done so, I don't see how it would be considered a reliable source given their stated purpose (reviews in bulk). As an aside, on the bibliography page, shouldn't it be characterised as a collection of shorts rather than novellas? ogenstein (talk) 20:32, 3 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 Bangor, County Down#Education. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyholme Primary School

Ballyholme Primary School (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 rife with original research on a typical primary school, no significant coverage beyond the expected local sources and passing mentions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination, preference is now to speedy redirect. – Teratix ₵ 02:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael van Holst

Michael van Holst (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)

Local councillor of medium-sized city, running for federal office. Not notable as either as per NPOL. Page only cites local news sources. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 05:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 05:31, 3 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clown world

Clown world (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 anonymous buddy on WP:Discord had concerns about this article. Its own references include Paul Joseph Watson, another YouTube video, and Big League Politics. The prod was contested, but there still is no claim in the article to any sort of relevance, notability, or lack of POV. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
alternatives to deletion you may also want to consider in response to the concerns brought up here. I hope this helps! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:03, 4 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Price (Canadian Politician)

Evan Price (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)

Autobiography with no sources that show this person meets the notability guidelines. Good faith google search coming up with primary sources and something that reads a lot like a press release. PROD was contested without explanation by IP user without addressing the issues, so here we are. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Tabou (film)

Tabou (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)

Short film with not much notability to be found. It apparently was at some award show that I can't find info for though. Still not much else to say. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibo, o sangue do silêncio (another similar case) Wgolf (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 3 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) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hel (film)

Die Hel (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)

Another short film of questionable notability. Though unlike some of the others-this at least is on the IMDB and has a Youtube link (which is more then I can say about others. Still I can't find any notability.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibo, o sangue do silêncio Wgolf (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:50, 3 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 JoJo Siwa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The JoJo & BowBow Show Show

The JoJo & BowBow Show Show (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 a Web series of YouTube shorts without notability (it fails Wikipedia's rule called

Houtakar (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also note that the creator of the page removed a notability tag and in the edit description, said that it was notable because JoJo Siwa was involved with the Web shorts. This goes against the

Houtakar (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Oh please no. Not another article requested for deletion. My creation feed is going down! I can’t deal with this! HappyINC (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:52, 3 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) 00:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Campanella

Angela Campanella (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)

Actress of questionable notability. She has only been in 3 films, which only 2 even have Wikipedia articles. And based off where she appears on the credits in either one of them, neither look like that important of roles. One thing that was making me question if I should put this up or not is how this actually has quite a few foreign wiki pages up. Oddly though-there isn't one in Italian. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:57, 3 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of Investigation

Secrets of Investigation (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 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. That sources have not been added to the article is not a valid reason for relisting. That they exist is enough. SpinningSpark 16:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Mersea Yacht Club

AfDs for this article:
West Mersea Yacht Club (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)

Local sailing and social organization, can't find substantive independent sources to pass

WP:NORG Reywas92Talk 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not comfortable with this being closed as a keep yet, as we're 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the article, however, none of the suggested references have been added to the article to improve it or satisfy any of the concerns of the nominator. Maybe another week around the AFD track can illicit some more input and either help the article be improved or gain a more solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:00, 3 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_3&oldid=1142613657"