Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 14

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.

Bedros Kapamajian

Bedros Kapamajian (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 fails the

• Delete: He is Armenian and yet there is no article in Armenian Wikipedia about this person. This means he is not notable amongst Armenians and hence he is not notable. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. (I do it, when necessary, as well.) But, of course,

it's not acceptable as an argument in AfD discussions. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This text is about a
  sources, such as Ramadan Sonyel, Salahi (1993). Minorities and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Mazal Holocaust Collection. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society. p. 129. -The Gnome (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I don’t see how he fails notability at all. Google search indicates that there appear to be sources for him (which I haven’t read) here, here and here. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. has enough sources to be notable Alex-h (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources are now adequate and article is well constructed and references; also
  WP:NOTPAPER. Britishfinance (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – The sources listed above by
  WP:CITOGEN and Circular reporting. This is not an !vote because I have not assessed the sources in the article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

You’re right. I should have spotted that. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 March 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) 02:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Bajaj

Kavita Bajaj (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)

Writer who has just done one film. I can't seem to find much searching for him other then mirror sites. Wgolf (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails
  WP:GNG. There is nothing on Google that would demonstrate notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:TOOSOON. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:03, 20 March 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.

I don't read a consensus (or much discussion beyond two mentions) about what to do with this title (especially as regards Varma (surname)), so that is left to the editing community. If we end up with a more sizeable number of articles using this name, this should likely be revisited. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varma (given name)

Varma (given name) (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a directory of names.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wikipedia has loads upon loads of articles on given names, even unpopular ones. There's even a style guide specifically for surname/given name pages. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, and also this article disambiguates between
  vuo (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Articles on given names and surnames are a well established concept on Wikipedia. Also see
  anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." MarkZusab (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There are hundreds if not thounsands of given name articles... but if the name isn’t notable then there’s no use. If only one notable person has the name that’s useless too. Also this article doesn’t meet the standards for name articles. Trillfendi (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely non-notable. Only very passing mentions in books. wumbolo ^^^ 13:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG, no notable mentions via Google Searches either. ToThAc (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per
  Varma (name).Ingratis (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - as per
  WP:NOTPAPER . Unoc (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. As people have said above, the article meets
  WP:NNAME because it is properly sourced. The proposals to delete the article have not addressed the fact that the article meets these criteria. Alarichall (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: The support for keeping the article either invokes that
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The case for keeping the contested article is so weak as to be irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deerbrook Editions

Deerbrook Editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I find no coverage beyond parentheticals and asides indicating that it is the publisher of whatever book is being discussed in a given source. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: at this time, there is nothing which conveys notability for a stand alone article; fails
  WP:CORP. Kierzek (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I feel like a Grinch, deleting a reputable, small, literary publisher. But we do need sources, and I can't find them. There should be no prejudice against a fresh article on this publisher by an editor who can soruce one. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 19 March 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.

List of Singapore Premier League hat-tricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was The list is incomplete, and shows no sign of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Singapore Premier League, not clear that this is a notable topic as a stand-alone list. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or perhaps merge at most. GiantSnowman 08:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These lists are regular amoung professional leagues, there is a whole category just for them. Sourcing needs improvement but hasn't been given the time to get that yet. There is no deadline here and incomplete lists can be expanded, the whole encyclopedia is not finished.
  Borgarde (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Singapore Premier League which is just 50k bytes right now. If there are more "hat-tricks" then we can think again about creating a stand-alone page. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - a bit premature to create this when there have only been 5 hat-tricks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - would be better to have more hat tricks, more content. robertsky (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Borgarde, prod rationale was spurious in suggesting delete because incomplete. There is no time limit on completion - if one thinks it's incomplete one should consider completing it. Doesn't matter there has been only 5: what is the cut off to keep these lists? 6? 10? 20?. I'd argue that as there have only been 5 they are more notable than some of the other ones where they are a dime-a-dozen. Don't see how Singaporean 1st tier hattricks are any less notable than English 4th tier hat tricks, A-League hat tricks, I-League hattricks or Algerian hattricks. Don't see those pages being nominated for deletion. Systemic bias...Hattricks are considered notable. There is even a page for Lists of hat-tricks. ClubOranje^T 10:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we're listing invalid reasons for deletion,

WP:OTHERSTUFF. To show notability of a list, there must be coverage that discusses the subject of the list, not just the entries on it. There's no indication that this is the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, whatever. So are you arguing that Singaporean hattricks are not notable even though other ones are with your OTHERSTuFF argument? Because EVERYONE above is suggesting it is notable enough to keep, probably because it is all notable stuff, it's just that half of them think the list is too short to waste a whole page on and want to put it on the same page as other information because, well I don't know why, I can only speculate maybe to save a tree. Half of them are saying keep the separate page if there are more hattricks in the list. Pretty sure that as time goes by there will be more hattricks in the list. End of the day if it's notable enough to keep then it can be as a list as it fulfills WP:LISTPURP. ClubOranje^T 08:59, 13 March 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) 02:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Green

Dmitry Green (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 significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Lots of mere mentions, but that doesn't add up to anything that would meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep He does seem to be a well known Russian entrepreneur, but there is no real biographical information about him as such that I can see. There is coverage, it might be named drops but its a whole lot of different companies are asking him what's what about startup's advice, with a mix of substantial news companies. The second half of the supposed references all about the COMDI company, which makes the article promotional and would need to be copyedited out. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. But that is the issue here, there is no actual biographical information on this subject (either in the article, or available elsewhere). "Name drops" do not give notability. As you say, there is a lot of WP:PROMO here (and probably WP:COI). I can't find anything on the subject that would meet WP:SIGCOV for a BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For 40-year old tech entrepreneur, he seems like a ghost on en-RS with almost nothing on him, and nothing obvious on rus-RS (that I could see). The article reads like a CV/resume. There are a lot of Russian references listed but they either don't mention him or make passing references about him. No
  WP:SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Very few of these refs actually relate to the statements being made. If I took out all the statements with no refs, this would be a very small article. Unreferenced statements like "In April 2018 he co-founded World Entrepreneurial Leadership Foundation." are very PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails
  WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 20 March 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 Exceptional Jivatma Valettas

The Exceptional Jivatma Valettas (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 appears to have received localised coverage only. There is "The+Exceptional+Jivatma+Valettas" little online that suggests passage of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill G. Chapman

Bill G. Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Per my search he doesn't pass GNG. I suspect Coping With Vision Loss: Maximizing What You Can See and Do might pass NBOOK (e.g. held by 162 libraries - plausible there are independent reviews - though Hunter House Publishers raises perhaps some questions) - but I haven't found independent reviews (hard to filter with all the crud that is out there on commercial books). I don't think Chapman meets NAUTHOR for authoring one possibly notable book. Might be scope for a re-purpose to the book if notability of the book is established. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I ran some news archive searches, on variants of his name, different keywords, and title of book, but I'm not finding him. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if anyone has more success.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 20 March 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.

Degica

Degica (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

• Are localisation companies/publishers no longer notable? They've put out a similar amount of games to other companies like Sekai Project, MangaGamer and Nicalis and their releases of stuff like Muv-Luv and RPGMaker have garnered a fair amount of attention so I'm not sure where the issue lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malincia (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:ORGCRIT - lacks the necessary coverage (unless someone who speaks Japanese can find something?). Jmertel23 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment The Japanese version of the article has 7 sources - 2 are sources within Japanese WP, 2 are to Degica's own site. Then there are cites to 4gamer and famitsu. The final cite is a note and not a reference. 4gamer and Famitsu seem like RS, but via google translate, neither appear to be actually ABOUT the company, and only mention it. Not that Japanese WP is the benchmark for whether a topic is notable, but it's worth noting for a Japanese topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to agree with this assessment — the parent websites seem reputable enough (especially Famitsu), but as you note they're not particularly reasonable as sources since they're not really covering the company at all. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of lack of adequate in quality and quantity
  WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:52, 22 March 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. More on account of the GNG argument than NACTOR ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew James Allen

Andrew James Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is high time we rid Wikipedia of all articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing
  WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 22 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George A. Burton

George A. Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, fails the GNG, current sourcing not convincing enough. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails GNG, per nom; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As is so often the case with Billy Hathorn's handiwork, the most substantive basis for notability here was the existence of an obituary in the local newspaper upon his death. But as always, this is not in and of itself a notability-clincher that guarantees him an article on GNG grounds despite falling below the NPOL bar — municipal finance commissioners aren't presumed notable just for existing, but the amount of
  reliable source coverage shown here is not enough to make him more special than most other municipal finance commissioners in most other cities. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO. Preaky (talk) 22:58, 15 March 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. Whether merging is appropriate is left to post-AFD discussion. I will be moving the page to the new name though. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Imagine

View AfD · Stats

)

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

This isn't notable anymore. It should be deleted because it is part of Microsoft Azure. Mstrojny (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this even valid deletion rationale? Pavlor (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY. surely using Template:Update, Template:Citation needed or a merge should have been considered before AfD. SomeOnce notable always notable. Its primary purpose seems to be educational so wiping it off or hiding it in the massive Azure cloud would seem a poor decision.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:PM? Mstrojny (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  My instinct or gut feeling would be a merger would to Azure would be almost akin to deletion by minimization or it would simply end up

  WP:UNDUE in Azure and its better left to evolve relatively harmlessly in its own article without causing interference to anybody or ending up with highly coupled touch points to Azure which I assume to be a medium to high importance article. I actually know nothing about the Imagine product but have some concept of Microsoft and Azure but I personally think tagging the merger statement for cn and possibly using the update statement if the article needs updating would probably be the route I would take. But this is my view ... and I am known to have some very weird views ... and the decision is yours. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Djm-leighpark: I will let the community decide whether to delete this or not. If the consensus is to keep this article, I would either move it to Microsoft Azure Dev Tools for Teaching or merge it into Microsoft Azure. Any thoughts? Mstrojny (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mstrojny:. I am concerned you may have a negative focus on the article and I have therefore taken trouble to add it to my watchlist. I believe any actions you may take such as moves may be contentious and possiby disruptive and you should seek consensus first. You are really advised to get advice at the WP:Teahouse rather than testing me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The program just changed its name last month. It might make sense to rename it to the new program name, if there is consensus to do so, but I see no reason to delete it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's probably a good reason to either create a redirect for the new name (the product seems to keep getting re-branded) on to do a rename (leaving a redirect). The name actually seems a little clumsy at first glance (but perhaps its me). There's also a question of where it should be Microsoft Azure ... or simply Azure ... ... that sort of a bigger question than this subject and there's a couple of precedents both ways. AfD isn't the right place for that discussion, though it is sometimes where that decision may be made.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see this as a history article. Microsoft Imagine existed for a period of time. Keeping it means people looking for information about it will be able to find this article. What is needed is a description and Wikilink within the Imagine article, directing readers to Microsoft Azure. And perhaps the Timeline at that article could mention the fold-in of Imagine. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not really agree with the historic. As far as I can tell the offering has been rebranded and repackaged as a
  Software as a Service application on Azure so is very much alive. I believe it is an application that can be provisioned on Azure, but not a core part of Azure infrastructure such as Azure files, Azure DNS, Azure DNS Private Zones or Azure Active Directory for example. Still agree with the keep which is primary AfD purpose. And a paragraph explaining the packaging to Azure would be good short term with a re-visit later. Needs a good independent review to source.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep and rename to Microsoft Azure Dev Tools for Teaching and establish a redirect, or merge with Microsoft Azure. There is no valid rationale for deletion, and the content about the history of the software should not be diminished. Article needs expansion and updating obviously. Unoc (talk) 10:30, 21 March 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.

Death of Merit

Death of Merit (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

Round Table, BR Ambedkar Caravan are not remotely reliable sources. N

Some random pieces about death of Dalit students have been cited in the article but I don't see about how they boost the notability of the subject, which is a documentary series. N

So, I conducted a

I spot a few trivial one-liner name drops over sources like this and this. Does not lend to significant coverage; required for passing GNG. N

There's another one-liner over this news-piece which is more significant than the two above but that's a blatant opinion piece (see this RSN thread as to the source not distinguishing between op-eds and objective reporting) and hence, is of much reduced value. N

Scroll has covered the series over one of their articles but they have been unanimously documented to be not a RS for these areas. N

That leaves us with it's plot-coverage by the local city-section of The Hindu; which is hardly enough to make it pass GNG/NFILM. ∯WBG^converse 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep It has just now been open for over 1 month for February 13 to March 14 with it being relisted 3 times.It has been again been opened on March 14 itself that is just over 2 hours after the closure by .@Ritchie333:.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary receives mentions in the contest of Dalit suicides and casteism in campus not gone into the regional language press just went through it briefly

• BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India
• If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times
• If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard
• The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost
• Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 14 March 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. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Srinivasan

Anand Srinivasan (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)

Spokesperson for a state-wing of a political party, author of a few investing books, and one of the hundreds of writers for a major newspaper. None of the above directly qualify him as a notable person. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Fails
  WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Lack of RS sourcing suggests that the article fails V/NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. 2601:188:180:1481:6C38:7734:5599:B3E5 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The spam has been cleared away as copyright violation, so the article is currently a stub. 2601:188:180:1481:6C38:7734:5599:B3E5 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan W. Walker Jr.

Morgan W. Walker Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:32, 18 March 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Jancke

Victoria Jancke (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)

German model, presenter and influencer with (not yet) real coverage in reliable sources. This and this are the only possibly RS sources I can find and both are mostly interview. Apart from that, all other sources I can find merely mention her in passing as a guest at some event or other. Might be a case of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Was unable to find notable coverage apart from the two you mentioned. Too soon for now. Greyjoy ^talk 07:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was able to find one more addition article [phttps://boulewahr.de/victoria-jancke-so-erobert-sie-jetzt-die-us-schauspiel-branche/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellbrett (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 March 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.

Ita O'Brien

Ita 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)

Entertainment industry professional. Probably fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Seem to be a fair number of name drops on three continents, indicating an industry professional doing her job. Also found this: [3] on an editorially controlled site. I think it is changed to weak keep, from delete. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep per Ita's work
• Keep - Article is cited with reliable sources. The subject clearly meets notability guidelines and passes
  WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - reliable sources have specifically covered her work. William Avery (talk) 09:10, 21 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Berry

Ryan 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)

Career minor league baseball player who fails GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable minor league baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non–notable minor league player, fails
  WP:NBASE Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:NBASE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Coverage is routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 00:21, 19 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahuldeep Gill

Rahuldeep Gill (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)

Based on their ResearchGate page, Gill does not have the level of citations needed to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment:: Being the creator of the article, I would like to stress on the fact that book written/translated by the author has been published by OUP. I found another book by OUP about Sikh Studies which includes a chapter by the author. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 05:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found two published reviews of his book [4] [5] but I don't think two academic-journal reviews of one book is enough for
  WP:AUTHOR. And the reviews make clear that the book is mostly translations rather than original content. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for now. It may be a case of
  WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 21 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heal (corporation)

Heal (corporation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I do not believe this company meets

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Article author). Heal is a credible organization and meets Wikipedias
  WP:RS. The following sources cover the company in-depth, and are from reliable sources. CNBC^[1], Home Health Care News ^[2], Med City News ^[3], and the Journal of Medicine^[4]. Zezetiger (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - User Zezetiger seems to be another undeclared CoI editor actively pushing this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Subject has enough notability to warrant this, but the article could be expanded and polished a little.TH1980 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:ORGDEPTH. Promotional 'cruft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep Could be built out more. Gr88scott (talk) 18:16, 13 March 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hico Ice Cream

Hico Ice Cream (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)

Nothing significant in coverage. Fraudulent company, now sealed per [6] for using harmful ingredients. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 20:39, 14 March 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 Charmed merchandise#Other merchandise. Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed (video game)

Charmed (video game) (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 game does not appear to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Merge/redirect to Charmed merchandise. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comment. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you. And that makes sense to me. I was unaware of the merchandise article when I nominated this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netrality

Netrality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't see any coverage other than the standard business churnalism. There appears to be some non-trivial coverage in Data Center Frontier regarding Netrality and other companies' performance during Hurricane Harvey, but I can't find any information on their editorial policies leading me to suspect that this source is not reliable. The article as written is a rather impressive length given the lack of citable information, but on closer inspection it almost entirely consists of listing various properties that the company has acquired. Does not meet

If there are any steps that can be taken to improve the article's encyclopedic status, please let me know.

Thank you, Mikiepc (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no issue with the size of the publications being used, my problem with them is that they seem to be trade magazines with opaque editorial policies that are largely republishing comments from PR statements from the company–such sources are regularly ignored at AfD, and
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you for your reply. I understand the suspicion of media coverage from trade publications, yet have seen no evidence of the aforementioned pubs lacking clear independence or editorial integrity. And though articles do occasionally slip through,
  WP:GNG guidelines, the Netrality article is more than notable enough to exist. Thank you, Mikiepc (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:ORGDEPTH. The section "Expansion" comes across as promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: basically this is completely lacking in decent reliable sources (as there aren't any to include) independent of the company's PR statements. NORG, ORGDEPTH etc etc, but
  WP:N has it in a nutshell. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 14 March 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.

Christopher Forrest (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)

Actor who does not seem to make Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only 2 roles (IMDB has just one though it looks like), one of them does not even have a page. So either delete or a redirect to Vincent and Me Wgolf (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, either delete or redirect. I made this article back in high school and completely forgot about it. Not even sure why I made it.

Dpm12 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (redirect also acceptable, though I don't see him as a likely enough search term in his own right to really make that necessary.) Actors, as always, are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they have IMDb profiles — and that's especially the case for actors who had just one role as a child before deciding not to stick with acting. If he had a stronger notability claim, such as having won or been nominated for a
  Genie Award for the performance, then things would be different — but if only notability claim he's got is "was in a film", then we need a lot more than just a profile in a film directory to make him notable for that. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 15 March 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.

D. J. Sackmann

D. J. Sackmann (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 indication of notability, no reliable third-party sources, largely unreferenced. The article suffers the same problems it was

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like an advertisement. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NHOOPS. I'm not sure if his training partner Micah Lancaster is notable either, but at least he has more coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet any SNG and lacks the significant indpendent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet
  WP:GNG. Article reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 19 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Tafoya

Alan Tafoya (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 was deleted once before via AfD; recreated again with claims to demonstrate more notability. The sources still don't satisfy

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are very few Native American actors of note in Hollywood and it can be quite difficult for them to get any traction in that industry. Tafoya is both an actor and a champion knife fighter who is recognized for both his acting roles and as himself on perhaps the most popular episode of Deadliest Warrior. He also recently starred in a touring musical theatre production about Sitting Bull. These things may not be that impressive compared to a Tom Cruise, but in the Native American community he is a person worthy of some recognition on Wikipedia. I am looking to source more material and citations with better references where possible. Would appreciate for the sake of Wiki diversity some leeway on letting this Article continue. That is my suggestion, though I know it is not up to me. Thank you for considering this. --Jay Odin (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be how his publicists promote him, but sources that are both independent and reliable sources are required. --
    talk) 02:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I have also sourced both a documentary movie and an article which detailed his two victories in martial arts knife fighting championships which keeps getting deleted, so I wonder if that aspect of his career is somehow not notable enough for Wiki to include. --Jay Odin (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page is not for general discussion. The sources offered are unreliable or publicity pieces. --
        talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Thus far, there are four notable publications and IMDB. Sites dedicated to Deadliest Warrior mention him frequently, with reference to the martial arts championships. Again, it must be kept in perspective that full blooded Native American talent often appears in productions directly related to that lineage and as such usually in featured roles. The major publications that draw specific reference to them are often limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Odin (talk • contribs) 04:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC) --Jay Odin (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional and more likely than not made by an associated/paid editor. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a lack of any independent coverage. A partial merge to the notable people section of Jicarilla Apache might be good to do, if there is a consensus he is on the verge of notable on a local level. Definitely not national or state-wide, however. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:BIO. Preaky (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:NACTOR. Coverage is either not independent or consists of passing mentions. Most significant coverage appears to come from his appearing on Deadliest Warrior, but even that doesn't appear to be independent. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]