Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 15

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.

AbdelFattah Rahhaoui

AbdelFattah Rahhaoui (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)

Reading over this biography, it just strikes me that this individual is not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. He seems like an important subject in French media about political issues but he doesn't deserve an article on the merits of what he has accomplished in life. Any fame he might have does not arise from his occupation and role there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:CLERGY lacks a guideline about imams. Miniapolis 02:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:CRIME. The only thing that this person seems to be notable for is a criminal investigation, and per WP:CRIME this individual doesn't seem to qualify for their own article. The fact that they run a school is not notable. On top of that, the article is terribly POV and bordering on BLP problems. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all reference in French. Perhaps they need to post this in French version of Wiki as it is more relevant to people in France than worldwide. Peter303x (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240701085605[reply]
• Delete not notable, even in France. POV and more POV. --Giorgio69 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Editors who suggest using the French-Wikipedia article on the subject should know that there is currently no such article there. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Israel F-16 Crash

Israel F-16 Crash (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 originally moved this one to draftspace for further work, as the writing is so bad that the article would need to be completely rewritten. I then discovered that February 2018 Israel–Syria incident already exists, and so Informed the article's creator. However, they insisted on moving this article back into mainspace. BilCat (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to February 2018 Israel–Syria incident. Most content is not worth keeping, but a few details about the strike could also be considered for merging into the existing article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MarginalCost (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's very unfair which you say most content is not worth keeping, The Article contain reliable sources and only pay to incident.MarginalCost reconsider The Article please.Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete per arguments below about ambiguity of link. Here is a list of Israeli F-16 crashes; no reason to privilege this incident. MarginalCost (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per MarginalCost. I've archived the content at User:ZLEA/sandbox/Israel F-16 Crash in case the article is deleted. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZLEA, I think the Article totaly is a good Article with reliable sources and only pay to that incident... The writer shape a standard wikipedia Article... If you agree with me support the Article.Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forest90 Actually, the article needs a lot of work as it doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you want to keep the article, you should move it back to the draft space where you and other editors can contribute until it's ready to be put back into the mainspace. Also, we all know that you were the one who created the article, so refering to yourself as "the writer" or "the author" is not helping. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article also appears to be written in an anti-Israeli point of view, a violation of

WP:NPOV. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect: Per two above !votes. While I would think a duplicate article that is badly written might deserve deletion, along with the fact a copy was archived, there was mention of "a few details about the strike could also be considered for merging". I do agree it does not deserve to remain as a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500, I rode you'r comment but if you look at this incident you will find as an important incident. In this Article which you said be delete the autor used reliable sources and only pay to incident. compeletly deserve be a Wikipedia Article I think so....Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: First, I am glad to see editors working to build a better encyclopedia. Questions to answer:

1)- Is this incident part of February 2018 Israel–Syria incident?

2)- If so why add new stubs or even start-class articles? This would be a

split

of another article? This is especially true when it would be an improvement to add to what already exists, as part of or an incident related to the other article.

Unless there is some clear reasoning that a separate article should be created it does not make sense to branch off another stub or start-class article, especially when it is so closely related. The idea is to continually improve Wikipedia not just increase the size.

I agree with a redirect because a separate stand alone is not needed. Some editors and admins that close discussions sometimes get a little confused. "Keep" means just that, as well as "delete". All other AFD options are alternatives to deletion, that includes

BRD, would normally need a discussion and consensus before reverting. Now, adding in that this article is most definitely problematic the options are more narrow. I mean this with all due respect but the above comments "...is so bad that the article would need to be completely rewritten." is kind wording. The grammar is such that it is very hard to read and make sense of so would definitely have to be completely rewritten

. This is not in any way meant to discourage you, or any other editor, but there is so much that would need correction, above the normal editing issues, that it would be impossible to even merge any of the content without a rewriting.

It might be a good idea to activate spell check (if not already being used) and right-click on words underlined in red.

The main issue is that an article already exists and any usable content here could be used in that article. An editor has archived the content so it can be worked on if a redirect is affirmed by consensus. Otr500 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The ArticleThis is good Article and use reliable sources and only pay to an incident...not more or less...Also the article didn't violated any Wikipedia rolls and I think this sentences are considerable and show the Article value: It is the second time that Israel has lost an aircraft in the invasion to neighbors countries.^[1] First one happened in 2006 when an Israeli helicopter was shot down over Lebanon war by a Hezbollah rocket.^[1] Forest90 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Delete (can apply to other crashes). No need for two articles on the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strongly oppose redirect. This is a poor fork of the incident article. As for a redirect - there have been several notable Israeli F-16 crashes over the past 30 years (off the top of my head - a crash of a f16 returning from Gaza with off balanced weapon load exploding on ghe runway and killing the pilot, or the crash of the son of Israel's first astronaut Asaf Ramon would be quite notable) - so the redirect for this certainsly should not be to the 2018 incident (one could have a dab or list - maybe).Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article would most likely be moved to a more specific name if it is redirected. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and re-direct to February 2018 Israel–Syria incident--Petebutt (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not every F-16 crash that is part of a particular conflict is notable. Bohbye (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident article. No clear solid reason(s) for this downing justifies its own separate article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as far as I can tell the claim to notability is that it was the first IAF jet fighter combat loss in 36 years, but I don't see why that should warrant an article. The event is already (and more coherently) covered at the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident article, and the term is too vague to keep as a redirect - even if the page is moved as ZLEA suggests, we still have the problem of a vague redirect. Better to create a new more-specific redirect and just do away with this. YSSYguy (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the first combat loss - e.g. F-16 crashed in 2016 returning from an airstrike in Gaza, which crashed possibly due to load asymmetry (ordnance on one wing, none on the other).[1]. In 2006 a Helicopter was shot down in Lebanon.[2] It is the first jet fighter in 36 years to SAM fire.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and re-direct to February 2018 Israel–Syria incident as there is a very similar page already there. -- Peter303x (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240701085605[reply]
• Delete per nomination. A redirect would not be amiss. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

UWS Hockey Club

UWS Hockey 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)

Non notable student club, references do not indicate notability of subject Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks proper references for the main sentence on top which is majority of the article. Peter303x (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240701085605[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Sanders

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

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

Does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. I have added some content and refs. I think she meets all 3 parts of
  WP:NACTOR. She's been in notable (linked) radio and television series. She evidently has a lot of fans (shown by number of tours and performances). And I haven't tried to put this in the article, but several of the reviews talk about her doing a different style of comedy, particularly in Shame Pig. Also, she won an award at the Edinburgh Fringe. Tacyarg (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: regular participant in Radio 4 The Unbelievable Truth, Edinburgh award (verifed, another source added), plenty more coverage: notable. PamD 08:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Also meets basic
  WP:RS: Guardian, Guardian, Times, Guardian, BBC. There are more. Britishfinance (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Agree that it meets basic
  WP:GNG Peter303x (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240701085605[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  notability provided above by Britishfinance, PamD, and others. -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 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.

Liberal Catholic Church Grail Community

Liberal Catholic Church Grail Community (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)

Lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Searching finds one brief mention in a reliable source–David V. Barrett (26 May 2011). A Brief Guide to Secret Religions: A Complete Guide to Hermetic, Pagan and Esoteric Beliefs. Little, Brown Book Group. p. 58.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as I could also find no coverage. MidwestSalamander (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This strikes me as a miniscule splinter denomination. I think we should either tolerate an article surviving or find a target where it an other similar movements can be briefly merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total lack of reliable secondary coverage. Also the article is essentially too stteped in how the group would self describe and thus is not really NPOV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references provided. Perhaps it is revised to add references it can stay. Peter303x (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240701085605[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Editors believing in the resurrection (of the text) can always save & use as appropriate. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center (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 Croatia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It needs a rewrite since it fails
  WP:GNG. I found these articles very quickly: [4] [5] [6]. Clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Based on the article, it's essentially a museum, and the references are sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the references cited by SportingFlyer. MidwestSalamander (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has sufficient sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.
  wp:ITSAMUSEUM. --Doncram (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per above, but a merge to Smiljan should be considered when you think about it. wumbolo ^^^ 12:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you to
  wp:BEFORE. --Doncram (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• WP:ITSAMUSEUM
  is circular-logic childish drivel which should be deleted. (I just went to see who wrote that nonsense, and no surprise, it's a Doncram creation)..

If the sources added do establish notability, then fine. But before they were added, it was just a travel brochure, not an encyclopedia article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can vouch for this. It's notable, but the article needed a decent amount of cleanup to get out of the

WP:PROMO sphere. SportingFlyer T·C 00:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - Though "Nikola Tesla Memorial Center" is not the most fruitful of search terms, the museum easily passes GNG in Croatian-language sources. PROMO et alia don't affect notability, and even if I were a fan of
  WP:TNT, the article is (in its current form) in no way in need of a complete rewrite. Daß Wölf 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) BTW regarding the article creator being a new editor, a look at the contribs page shows Silverije has been around since 2009 :)[reply
  ]
• Keep.
  WP:ITSAMUSEUM - and yes museums tend to be inherently notable (as they get written about by media, travel books, and other books - as institutions open for public display, they tend to be covered). ESSAY arguments aside - SportingFlyer's sources demonstrate GNG (which is what matters). Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I'll go with
  WP:ITSAMUSEUM too. I see no value whatsoever in deleting pages on significant museums and historic sites like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks good with current rewrite. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:04, 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.

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

)

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

Tragic but not notable cargo plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the ATR-42 was carrying passengers and not cargo this probably would've been notable (I think I might update
  WP:AIRCRASH in this regard). As is - the sources in the article do not establish SIGCOV, and I do not see much else. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I understand cargo flights are not as notable and SIGCOV is lacking but we do have two fatalities and a destroyed aircraft. Please see
  Skyway Enterprises Flight 7101. I found the final accident report (in Spanish) and if this article survives I'll add detail (and there is plenty) best as I can. - Samf4u (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. The article does not mention this, but the aviation-safety.net reference says that the crash led to an airworthiness directive for the ATR-42. However, this fact needs better sources than the air crash databases to establish significance. Notability is not established, but it can be minimally asserted. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't hold with the view that cargo flights are not as notable as passenger flights. We have a relatively large airlined that was destroyed. Article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Aircraft with passengers generate more news items and subsequent follow on sources. Losing a 19MUSD airframe and 2 crew - well - is not as noteworthy. But what matters are the sources (AIRCRASH is merely an essay) - if you are advocating retention - please provide a few reliable in-depth sources.Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Considering the outcome of the accident, it qualifies the criteria in
  WP:AIRCRASH, all the article needs is expansion on the current content MegaFlyCraft (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 18:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

McCartney Quinn

McCartney Quinn (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 other significant coverage found than sources on page, only one of which is actually about her. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet basic
  WP:GNG and lacks proper references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter303x (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete More like a
  WP:RS on the subject. She was named "one of Kansas City's top 50 Influencers" by Blogger Local: Kansas City, an un-notable KC online blog. Article's main references are spam-links to her various small businesses. Would be surprised if this BLP makes it the full 7 days. Britishfinance (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this
  promotional text, claimed to be about an "influencer." -The Gnome (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd.

Sheetal Manufacturing Company 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)

Non-notable company, no coverage, just passing mentions and a potential hit piece in a non-rs, and employing 1500 people in a city of 7 million is not even significant. Note: I looked under Sheetal Group, Sheetal Manufacturing and Sheetal Diamonds, same outcome. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't looked into notability yet, but must point out that employing 1500 people in Mumbai is just as important as would be employing all 1500 people in a village, so that bit of the nomination statement is invalid.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It was in reference to the decline. Stating x company employs y number of people is irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, what was the relevance in giving the population of Mumbai? I'll treat that as a rhetorical question and give the answer myself: obviously none at all. Why don't you just present the facts in deletion discussions rather than attempt to poison the well?

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe I have explained this. Specifically because the decline was based on the number of employees, which you'd know if you read the history of the article. Take a chill pill. Praxidicae (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – having 1500 employees is enough of a claim of significance to decline an
  NCORP. Bradv🍁 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

List of Nepalese billionaires by net worth

List of Nepalese billionaires by net worth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list of one person doesn't seem very useful. Praxidicae (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Category:Nepalese billionaires has six entries, FWIW. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Out of a few random clicks, I've yet to find one that's sourced (reliably.) Seems a bit silly of a list in any case.Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah I just went through the list, most of these aren't sourced even to non-rs, let alone rs. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now The list was created on 21 April 2017‎ and has only one thing listed. Unless someone can find enough things to make a proper list, no reason for this to exist. Dream Focus 23:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough amount of content for justifying a separate page. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. This is no even a
  list. Truly not worth the space, not by a billion winks. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the theory was an important component of soviet thinking for many decades. I’ll se what sources I can find. Mccapra (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Class conflict#Socialism. Needs more sources to prove notability on it's own, this article was created in 2004 so I'm not holding my breath. Hydromania (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not Marxist concept of Class Struggle. As page correctly tells, this a specific Stalinist concept, one of ideological cornerstones of Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union. The term is more widely used in Russian as "обострение классовой борьбы при социализме", ~17,000 Google books hits [7]. This should be better kept as a separate subpage. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep. I understand that a random westrrn wikipedian has zero knowledge about stalinism besides it was evil. And aggavation of ignorance under no interest in exercising due diligence. And of course prominent historians like snyder (cited) have no say wor wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 02:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I noticed that a more common term is "intensification" rather than "aggravation". I guess the article better be renamed. - Altenmann >talk 02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Altenmann is correct. ‘Intensification’ is the usual term, and the article should be renamed. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into
  Stalin era, without independent notability outside of the wider context. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That was not a random slogan. As page correctly tells, that "was one of the cornerstones of Stalinism in the internal politics of the Soviet Union". My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Sungkai (state constituency)

Sungkai (state constituency) (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 does not have any sources, and whatsoever it does not meet the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and improve: it's a constituency of the Perak State Legislative Assembly. A typically boneheaded nomination from another blocked sockpuppet of a serial bad-nomination pest. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Second level constituency in a large country, equivalent to a state constituency in the US or a Scottish Parliament constituency, which we have articles for. Number 57 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Struck the nomination atop, which was posted by a confirmed sock puppet (
  WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:25, 16 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.

Under the Influence (Wildside album)

Under the Influence (Wildside album) (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)

Due to the commonality of both the album and band name, could find no in-depth coverage of this album. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails
  WP:NALBUM, and no other in-depth independent sources were found. Other editors may say to redirect to the artist's article, but frankly that article is complete OR (the one source in the artist's article turns out to be a user review) and should be put up for AfD as well. Both articles appear to be a band member's attempt at promotion. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Spring Awakening (film)

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

• Comment: Couldn't notify initial contributor (Lord Cornwallis) due to the fact adding the notification would have exceeded 2048 kilobytes. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep because this (in slide #8) from Deutsche Welle calls the film "The first teenage movie ever?" and says, "Richard Oswald's 1929 film 'Spring Awakening' — based upon the play by Frank Wedekind of the same name — concerns sexuality and puberty among some young German students and is believed to be one of the first teenage movies ever made." There may be more coverage in German-language sources, as it does not seem well-covered in the English-language world. Maybe we can ask German-speaking editors to take a look? At minimum, this should merge/redirect to Spring Awakening (play)#Adaptations. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it does have a claim of significance as shown above which is from a reliable sources and this is pre-internet so google should not decide whether it is included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. It really shouldn't be all that surprising that a silent film from Weimar Germany doesn't have many Google hits. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:30, 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.

Leila Lowfire

Leila Lowfire (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 appears to be an attempted

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete this
  WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Nick Ahlmark

Nick Ahlmark (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 editor (

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't find anything in sources that seems to match this person, when combined with
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, we should just get on and do the deed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Ritchie333. Mccapra (talk) 15:30, 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.

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 term "activist" is so broad that it is meaningless; this list will not assist anyone in finding anything they are looking for. Lists of specific kinds of activists (e.g. LGBT rights) might be useful. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: I too think that having seperate articles for specific activism (eg. LGBT rights) would be the ideal solution here. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 17:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unsourced, vague list of randomly selected people with no description. Trillfendi (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too broad and hazy a criterion to be of much use. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that splitting into more defined lists is worthwhile, e.g. List of African-American civil rights activists, List of African-American LGBT rights activists, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The term "
  WP:BLUESKY. Andrew D. (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Martin Luther King was not a generic "activist", he was a civil rights activist; not an environmental, or animal rights, or anti-smoking, or LGBT, or women's rights, or any of a dozen more actually useful classifications. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our article about
      Martin Luther King opens by saying that "Martin Luther King Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American Baptist minister and activist...". That's a high-traffic GA and so the plain use of the term is uncontroversial. Andrew D. (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • ... an opening that would quite obviously be improved if it were less vague; perhaps ""Martin Luther King Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American Baptist minister and civil rights activist...", which is clearly better. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons recited by
  WP:Before. Clearly, there are better alternatives than the Wikipedia equivalent of Capital punishment, deletion. That should only be a last resort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete article contains no substantial content. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I click on links to their articles, and it calls them "activists". Perfect valid list article, although more information should be listed.
  List of African-American firsts, List of African-American mathematicians, List of African-American inventors and scientists, List of African-American Republicans, List of African-American writers, List of African-American astronauts, and a whole lot more articles exist showing list of African-Americans notable for various reasons. [0}] Dream Focus 12:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment For all the hand wringing over the lack of clear definition of the phrase "black activitist," this is a remarkably short list. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Is this a list of African Americans who are activists or activists who support African-American causes? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first one. Dream Focus 19:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think the article can be improved, but the need for improvement does not warrant deletion. In my opinion, I think this list can be formatted into a table - listing the name of the activist and the area of activism they are known for, etc. This is a list of notable people who are known activists. The nominator hasn't provided any justifiable reason for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added a lead and table to heading A.[8] Needs to be completed. Hope that will help the reader. Please feel free to help. If anyone has a better way of doing it please help out. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets
  WP:LISTN, numerous books list and discuss African American activists eg. Radicalism at the Crossroads: African American women activists in the Cold War, Schoolhouse Activists: African American educators and the long Birmingham civil rights movement, No Easy Victories: African liberation and American activists over a half century, 1950-2000, Time Longer Than Rope: a century of African American activism, 1850-1950, to name just a few. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete this discombobulated, random assortment. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reasons at the other recent AfD of
  WP:PAG, and all the listed people are blue-linked to other WP articles (e.g. they are notable). It is a Keep. Britishfinance (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep For the same reasons given by User:Britishfinance , User:Coolabahapple , User:Dream Focus , User:Andrew Davidson . Admittedly a work in progress, I commend the contributors thus far, this is certainly worthwhile and provides valuable reference material. Unoc (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Sasha Compère

Sasha Compère (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)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 19:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment @Iamzine13: Deletion rationale? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Answer @
  General Notability For Person MrZINE 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Article is too short, does not contain a photo of the person, and is non-notable. --Ernesztina (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article being short, not containing a photo isn't really a criteria for deletion. Legion X (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly passes general notability there are many sources for this person. All the sources are reliable and the article has two references. And to Ernesztina as well as the nominator it is called a stub and therefore does not automatically mean that it should not be on here just because it is "short" or does not have a photo. If the criteria is to have a photo now then we might as well delete 75% of what is on wikipedia. Games of the world (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the article I would like to withdraw my nomination for this AFD MrZINE | talk 19:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the actor does not meet
  WP:GNG, I fail to find anything other than trivial coverage and press releases mentioning her name in cast lists. Of the current sourcing in the article, one source is about her and that is a short notice about her being cast in the TV show, while the other two are again just mentions of her name. --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete clearly fails the multiple significant roles in notable productions test, does not pass any other actor notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails
  WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that winning the Women Transforming India award isn't sufficient to meet GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Shah

Shikha Shah (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)

Claim of notability but appears to have no notable achievements having just set up a minor business in the last year or so. Fails GNG. Too soon for an article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom,
  WP:TOOSOON and smacks of a vanity/promotional article. WCM_email 01:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I can’t find sources to support this. Mccapra (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as she does not meet
  WP:GNG at this time. There is a slight possibility that the article could be redirected to Women Transforming India but that article is IMO on the TOOSOON side as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as recipient of the UN- and Indian government-sponsored Women Transforming India, which recognises only 12-15 women per year. PamD 08:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PamD. She's also one of two recipients of a new Gujarat University award. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:GNG or any other notability guideline? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sure. The very first additional criteria: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: Thanks for clarifying. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that the Women Transforming India award and the Gujarat University award could be categorized as "well-known" or "significant". That claim could be dispelled simply by looking at the very limited coverage the awards themselves have received. I hope you will agree that just because an award or honour is notable enough to have an article on ENWP, it does not automatically qualify them as being "well-known" or "significant". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How good are your Indian language skills, Sir Nic? What actual research have you done to make such a claim. I'm going with the good-faith understanding that the award was sufficiently important that people on the ground in India organised an editathon around it. I don't think it is for us to say, from, presumably, several thousand miles away, that the award did not achieve considerable press in India. There is a thread on the WiR talk page should you want to take this up with a local editor - they'd be better informed than me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tagishsimon: Did you just assume my location? :) It should suffice to say that I have a very good understanding of the subject. More importantly, notability of the subject has yet to be established in consonance with this project's official policy. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is your view, Sir Nic. Mine is that the multiple references on her article support "consonance with this project's official policy" so far as coverage is concerned, and that the award supports the additional criteria. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on these points. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly, fails
  WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete since subject clearly fails
  WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - while exclusivity is important in an award, I don't think that sole criteria is enough to make it a significant, or well-known award. Absent that, doesn't meet
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:47, 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.

Jagdish Chaturvedi

Jagdish Chaturvedi (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)

Twinkling XfD after IP 2401:4900:2503:1A19:4540:B6DA:8AC4:3DF8 tried to ask for speedy deletion (albeit without knowing how to and somewhat butchering the page). IP's rationale was "The article is regrettably pure self promotion. The personality is not note worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. The article may be moved for deletion with immediate effect. The text in the article resembles to a great extent the text in the personality's personal webpage. Such self aggrandizement and promotion ought not to be entertained on an Encyclopedic Platform." Moral of the story: although I don't know if the IP read/was familiar with general notability guidelines, the IP was on to something, and this article may not meet notability (among other problems the article has). Your folks' thoughts? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The personality is a notable author and inventor and therefore should have a Wikipedia Page. The article has been edited to remove promotional content. External links have been removed. Reliable sources and unbiased facts have been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas222334 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no real indication of notability as a comedian, and the medical career does not seem to meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject of the biography has received substantive coverage in publications such as MIT Technology Review, Fast Company, Deccan Chronicle, the Hindu, LiveMint and the Economic Times. There has been more non-trivial coverage in the Economic Times ^{archive.orgET2} and The Hindu. Therefore, this article passes the muster at
  WP:BIO. It could do with some clean-up though. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Patricia Patts

Patricia Patts (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 subject. CSD was declined, was told to put in an AfD instead. JAH2k (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has some prominent roles in notable productions such as at least three Charlie Brown films where she is second in the cast list so passes
  WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for reasons already mentioned, and the starring role in a significant production of Annie. Not to mention that she played Peppermint Patty and her name is Patricia Patts. Nick Number (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Her article shows that she meets
  WP:NACTOR. Britishfinance (talk) 01:36, 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.

Vinayak Dalmia

Vinayak Dalmia (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

Delete. I checked all the RS-compliant references given in the article and none supports the claims that the subject is that party's spokesperson. All the references are incidental mentions or contributor profiles on citizen journalism portals. Also, the article is so full of

WP:PUFFERY that it would require a rewrite from scratch even if better sources are miraculously found. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - The article has been previously deleted for no independent sources, no evidence of notability, autobiography. The article has been recreated without any improvements.--___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The current referencing is mostly primary sources or article by, not about, Dalmia. The Forbes article is a contributor article which essentially means that there has been no editorial oversight exercised by Forbes on the content, and is it is in essence a glorified blog post. I can find no coverage about this person to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Singh

Atul Singh (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)

Absolute fluff piece on a non-notable individual. Sources are largely primary and unreliable. Copious amounts of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. But interesting side note - much of the article's content comes from a number of user accounts with a similar naming style who have only made edits to this article. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this article was largely written by its subject.
  talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A cursory search for Atul Singh and Fair Observer (together) throws up no results other than his own and FO. All videos are either uploaded by him or FO. Only other link is an IIT alumni link but that is meaningless. Fails GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake. I thought it was an alumni link when I opened it; it was just a general bio. Nothing there to establish his notability there. He does have the blue tick on Twitter, but given the ease with which practically anyone can get a blue tick (and others don't including a Nobel laureate), I stand by my earlier !vote. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this
  notability exists. -The Gnome (talk) 11:56, 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.

World Crohn's and Colitis Day

World Crohn's and Colitis Day (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)

World IBD Day for Crohn's and colitis on May 19 appears from a Google search to be the main observance Shillings1005 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could not find any reference to this day online, which is strange given it started post 2007 and by definition should promoted? Tried various combinations of the words in my search, but got nothing. The single reference in the article is a dead link? Feels like this WP article was done as a PROMO-piece for the launch of the day but for whatever reason, it never caught on (did it every happen?). Can't see how this meets any definition of
  WP:RS on it? Britishfinance (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. Did find a reference for 2009 in this book [10], it is just a passing mention from the chrons.org website in a directory. Britishfinance (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 09:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 18:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I imagine this is an example of the situation for which NFOOTY was written. The article's subject played for
  S.S. Lazio on a youth team in Ripi until 1967 when he came to the United States, soon turning from player to referee to coach. He has some local notability, but there seems to be no independent significant coverage to meet GNG. The best I found (searching for John Zangrilli and Giovanni Zangrilli) was this local non-independent write-up and this brief mention. However, S.S. Lazio was and is a fully-professional team, and even to anti-NFOOTY-crusading Levivich, it certainly seems possible that there would be significant coverage of him as a football player, which might be offline and in Italian and thus simply inaccessible to me. However, I can't find any statistics from the 1960s in Italy that would confirm how many pro games he played and thus how far over the NFOOTY bar he crosses. So I'm a weak delete given that there isn't enough data (that I've seen) for NFOOTY or GNG, but I would probably !vote my first "keep per NFOOTY" if it could be shown that he was a regular player for S.S. Lazio in Italy. Fails GNG, fails NFOOTY, delete. Leviv ich 16:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete He didn't play for Lazio, he refereed an exhibition between Lazio and the Cosmos. [11] SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, I misread it. Thanks for pointing that out. This won't be my first "!keep per nfooty," after all. Leviv ich 00:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails
  WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:14, 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.

2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage (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)

See also

talk) 09:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 09:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 09:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. My reply in
  emijrp (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. This is a blatant POV fork based on one cherrypicked excerpt from one opinion piece; it is not a likely search term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 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.

2019 Venezuelan power grid attack (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)

See also

talk) 09:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 09:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 09:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Citing the same article, "Putting this all together, it is extremely likely that this past week’s blackout in Venezuela was the simple result of the country’s own infrastructure problems rather than a targeted cyber action by the United States designed to oust President Maduro". --

talk) 10:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. This is a blatant POV fork based on one cherrypicked excerpt from one opinion piece; it is not a likely search term, is fringe and undue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 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 delete. Michig (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University Magazine

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

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

Sources provided do not substantiate that the subject is notable ElKevbo (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• this page should not be deleted because they are similar to
  Narcity, and MTL Blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaUm (talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I have blocked this editor, who is the creator of the article, for advertising and suspicions of an undisclosed financial conflict of interest. MER-C 11:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Seems to fail WP:Notability (media). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable subject in an article based on "what I did for homework". (So badly written I hope it wasn't accepted.) Emeraude (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article is written like a advertisement. The article has unreliable sources including their own website.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:32, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Abdi

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

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

Sources provided do not establish the notability of this subject ElKevbo (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - as far as I can tell, this subject does not meet
  WP:BIO. The article is also spam and likely undisclosed paid advocacy, something I've blocked the creator for. MER-C 09:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete As per nom. Worth pointing out the link with the discussion above. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 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.

Claery (surname)

Claery (surname) (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. There are no notable persons with the surname per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable surname, given that no one in Wikipedia has that name! May have a plac ein a dictionary of surnames, but this is and encyclopeadia, not a dictionary. Agreed that this seems nothing more than promotional of a (non-notable) actress. Emeraude (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Gold

Nate Gold (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 career minor league baseball player.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What has changed to justify a 2nd deletion nomination for this article since the last AfD resulted in keeping it? Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BASE/N. It has since been removed from that guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete When this article was AfD'd the first time, we counted playing in the CPBL as a factor that presumes notability. We no longer do. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet
  WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:24, 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. bd2412 T 16:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Merklinger

Dan Merklinger (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 career minor league baseball player.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]