Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 19

CheckUp & Choices

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

Promotional article that fails

WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

William Way LGBT Community Center

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

Nonnotable community center

talk) 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - fails GNG. Only local and cursory coverage. None of those sources do it for me; merely mentioning a location in a source does not establish notability ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:56, 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 result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Goldman

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

Appears to fail

WP:GNG. Wikipedia cannot include every single corporate employee. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

del - no evidence of notability.

talk) 23:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And the chief something officers just keep multiplying.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG pretty miserably. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability and no in depth independent coverage by reliable sources to meet
WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all has been stated above
talk) 00:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article is nothing
talk) 01:51, 27 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Manitoba China Times

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

Unsourced since 2006. Fails

WP:GNG. The best source I could find was this entry in a database of minority media, but I couldn't find any other usable sources. – Teratix ₵ 23:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

del nonnotable printed freebie.
talk) 23:48, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MIMAL

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

I can't find any reliable source that actually uses this term. Delete as per

Rusf10 (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

The links in the article seem reliable enough to pass muster. the folklore it originates in is established, and if the acronym is a learning device used in current education, that furthers the case. Keep, barring further developments. Scriblerian1 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources are acronymfinder.com and a blog. How are those acceptable sources?--

Rusf10 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

del nn piece of folklore, among zillions of smarticisms in popculture.
talk) 23:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep – Though not covered by the New York Times there is enough secondary coverage to warrant a spot here at Wikipedia. However, would change the piece’s name to “MAMIL” (geographical acronym) in that just the Acronym “MAMIL” (Middle aged man in Lycra) is gaining quite a bit of attention in the cycling world and can see an article here in a very short time.ShoesssS ^Talk 15:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources cover this? Also, there's already a

Rusf10 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comment – My fault “Fat Finger”/typo……again apologies on MAMIL versus MIMAL…with regards to references a Google search does give a number of secondary sources, quality ahhhhh. That is way a Weak Keep. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced cruft. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism; sources are not reliable. While not necessarily dispositive in and of itself, I will observe that having lived in the area for many years and spending a good deal of time studying the geography of Mississippi River basin, I have never encountered the term. Uninvited Company 22:47, 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 result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoffman L. Fuller

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

Fails

WP:NPOL. Mayor of a small town. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate that the subject passes
WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete mayor of a place that was not even the largest place in its urban area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 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 result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All-American Boys Chorus

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

This article has been around for eight years, yet in that time nobody has managed to provide any independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep .
talk) 00:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While there is a discography, I'm not convinced that we've cleared the notability hurdle of significant discussion of the chorus. Sexual abuse scandals wouldn't give the group notability unless they were so widespread as to be an organizational issue (q.v. Penn State). I'm like RHaworth. The article has had time to be improved, but it keeps turning into puffery without independent sources. —C.Fred (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A single scandal - shit happens, but a series of scandals is definitely an issue. Unfortunately a
  talk) 01:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Speedy Keep The article has been unsourced for 8 years, yet no editor chose to add reflist so they could be added. That, and in about ten minutes I found half a dozen sources and expanded the article about a third in size. Was Wikipedia's Deletion Policy #7 followed? In my opinion... no. Markvs88 (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The new references help establish notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Roberto Peña

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

Filmmaker with questionable notability. I can't find anything he has done on here and I have not found that much about him outside of Wikipedia mirror sites. Wgolf (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails
WP:CREATIVE. I've altered the article to note that he died in 2017, so this is no longer a BLP. The fact is that Mr. Peña only worked on three full-length films, Raíces de Piedra (1961), Sangre en los Jazmines (1974) and Mientras Arde el Fuego (1979) – everything else were short films or documentaries. That's not to dismiss him, but it means there is little in the way of in-depth sources about a person with such little output. The most detailed biography is on the website of Colombia's national film institute [2] but this probably doesn't constitute a reliable independent source. Most other sources are just passing mentions, and mostly regarding Raíces de Piedra [3], [4], [5] – it seems to me that it would be more worthwhile creating an article for the film than to keep this biography, which it appears will never be more than a very brief stub. The film, on the other hand, has more potential reliable sources, and is also notable for being banned by the military government of the time. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 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 result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zombies Ate My Girlfriend

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

South African metal band. Fails

WP:BAND with no songs nationally charting, no major awards (they have won minor awards at metal festivals, but these were not notable awards), their record label is a small non-notable/niche SA label, and no major tours/coverage. No entry in AllMusic or Sputnik Musik. Feels like their WP article is their most notable RS; it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This article was PROD'ded some time ago but the PROD was removed after a few sources were added. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their works have been reviewed several times by a site called Angry Metal Guy, as seen in the article's existing citations, but that may or may not be
significant and reliable, and either way this is practically the only publication that has noticed them. Otherwise they can only be found in brief directory entries and occasionally mentioned as merely being present at a festival. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Angry Metal Guy's "About" page self-identifies as a blog (despite have a so-called "staff" of reviewers.) I don't think it's an RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as
WP:TOOSOON as they do not seem to have any substantial coverage in reliable sources and no major claims of significance. They may be notable in the future but not at present unfortunately, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
WP:BAND. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:21, 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 Keep per

WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Quentin Lacour

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

Article about footballer who made 2 appearances in the fully-pro French second division several years ago. The online coverage of this player is routine (e.g., match reports, transfer announcements, or statistical database entries) except for a few blog posts and a

WP:GNG - as is the case here. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage, including [6] (assumedly, this was linked to by a shorter article which covered him), [7] passes
WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – If you count the 3 Feb 2019 Le Progres article SF linked to (first link) as significant coverage, that's it, that's the only one. The others are either a couple-sentence mentions, or an interview (primary source). Without significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, GNG isn't met, and 2 appearances is just a nominal NFOOTY pass. Leviv ich 06:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this passes GNG with sources provided and meets the agreed football notability consensus per professional league.
Borgarde (talk) 11:45, 25 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. Regardless of the significance of the

WP:GNG appears to be met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Again I say, the LA Times source clearly stated that "The Miss Hungary competition is not connected with the Miss Universe pageant or any other international contest", therefore the pageant she won wasn't of any notability. Winning that contest clearly meant nothing besides driving her to take her own life. Apparently the only reasons she was "harassed" was because at that time in history, beauty pageants were frowned upon while the people suffered under communism. Certainly isn't worth taking up space here, especially with not having sources for her actual life besides her own "website". This isn't legacy.com Trillfendi (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Csilla Molnár

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

This very odd article relies on a primary source... the subject’s website... and an obituary which confirms “the Miss Hungary competition is not connected with the Miss Universe pageant or any other international contest.” So she didn’t meet notability for pageant winners anyway. “Model commits suicide” isn’t notability. Trillfendi (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources outside those used. Sbalfour (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book written about her is recorded in Worldcat as being held in various libraries worldwide. I'll add it to the article. Title google-translates as "God Protect The Queen! : the first documentary of the life and death of Hungarian beauty queen, Csilla Molnár, after the liberation - the only one so far" ("God save the queen"?). PamD 10:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If she hit the LA Times in 1986 I'm sure she had further international coverage too, not so easily findable from that far back. Have added her imdb record, which shows a documentary "About the first Hungarian Beauty Contest in 1985, that led to a tragic end" (yes, I know imdb isn't a RS). Anyone who reads Hungarian could certainly use the many sources listed at the end of her Hungarian wikipedia article to expand this one. PamD 10:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know good and well that IMDb is not a reliable source on here. Trillfendi (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I said so above. PamD 12:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a film about the contest and her death, mentioned in many snippet-view sources in Google books and a couple of more accessible sources, which I've added. Certainly notable. PamD 13:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still not worth keeping. She didn’t even compete in a notable pageant. The only thing you deem notable about her is her death. It doesn’t make sense. Non-notable people have a whole channel dedicated to documentaries about their deaths: Investigation Discovery. Trillfendi (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she is the most well known beauty queen in Hungary, because of her fate and political situation in Socialist Hungary. Another sources: [12]. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The July 1986 Reuters/UPI wire stories on her were picked up by Houston Chronicle (12 July 1986, p 18), Chicago-Sun Times (13 July 1986, p 5), San Francisco Chronicle (12 July 1986, p 3), Chicago Tribune (12 July 1986, p 4), and Orlando Sentinel (12 July 1986, p A10), among others. So
talk) 19:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

It looks like you meant to reply to some other comment, as nothing in your reply responds to my !vote rationale.

talk) 19:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

If people could read they would see that it clearly says the pageant was not part of the Miss Universe system or any other international contest. Trillfendi (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't know if this source is helpful but I thought I'd leave it here [13]. She also has a Wikipedia article on the Hungarian Wikipedia [14]. Although the Los Angeles Times source claims that Miss Hungary is not connected with international competitions, it actually is (winners have gone on to compete in Miss Europe, Miss Earth, and Miss World). This is the competition that kicked off Zsa Zsa Gabor's career, after all. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only speak extremely basic Hungarian, but reading that article didn’t do anything to convince the idea that it’s worth “keeping”. It’s only “source” is also her website! Nothing out there actually goes in depth about her life independently. Routine coverage about her suicide at best. Trillfendi (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough new RS per
WP:GNG. Clearly, she was notable in her time. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, a winner of a 1985 major beauty pagent in a large country would have had material RS on her from national sources at that time; which is not easily EN-searchable online. Britishfinance (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

As I already pointed out, Miss Hungary is connected with international contests. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can (and did) read.

WP:HEY, the GNG issues have been at least technically addressed, imho. Britishfinance (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Even on 20 January 2019, on what would have been her 50th-birthday, Hungarian newspaper,

WP:SIGCOV) "Today it would be 50 years for the tragic queen of beauty, Csilla Molnár". Search via her image on google, and it leads you to lots of RS Hungarian newspaper coverage. Britishfinance (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Added a few more refs from mainstream Hungarian newspapers from 2015 to 2019 on her; she seems even today to be a notable subject for them. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I believe subject scrapes through
WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I do believe, per the added sources during this AfD, that notability is established for GNG. I also believe that NMODEL is satisfied as Miss Hungary is sufficiently notable despite not being part of the Miss Universe set. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~What is the WP tag to suggest merging content with her Hungarian Wikipedia article Csilla Molnár~~ (worked this out); she also has a lot of photographs uploaded onto Hungarian Wikipedia Commons, of which it would be nice to include at least one here for her infobox? Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Huwiki is one thing, Commons another. But I think there's a "Fair use" rationale which can be used to add a copy of a non-free image of a dead person in some circs. PamD 23:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, thanks for that, I was wondering why en-WP was defying my attemps to work out the :hu: link to it (and all permutations). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:58, 26 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament shield

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

No hits on this in google, and the article is grammatically garbled, so I can't tell whether the item is a piece of armor or a cloth flag/banner. Sbalfour (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a very bad translation of Scudo banerese and that the subject is actually the banner of a knight banneret, which is square, like the image in the article. Such a banner doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bad translation, no sources, and a poor fork of Heraldic flag#Banner and Banner of arms. I actually do think this would merit a standalone (though Banner of Arms might be it) - but the current content here is inferior to what we have elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails
WP:V. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:57, 26 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Freedom Caucus

Comment - Which sources are you referring to? Every source except for three go to the website for the organization, while the other three go to what appear to be internet blogs. There aren’t any notable members other than a former county councilman in St. Louis County, which is an extremely low bar. There’s very little to indicate this organization is even remotely notable. Toa Nidhiki05 20:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article almost exclusively links to the organization’s own web page and does not appear to have any elected officers at any level of government. Toa Nidhiki05 19:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a lot of water has gone over the bridge since this topic was deleted in 2006. E.g., a check on references does provide enough
Notability. (And I wonder how getting "elected officers" is a criteria for notability.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because I had never heard of it, and sourcing on page is almost all PRIMARY, I ran some searches. But very little came up, and most of the handful of hits were mere mentions. If someone can source it properly, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article mainly contains partisan sources. --
talk) 00:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC); edited 05:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no justifiable reason to delete this article. Just because most Americans have never heard of it doesn't mean we should delete the article. Most Americans have never heard of James K. Polk either ... Necropolis Hill (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necropolis Hill: - this isn't actually a reason (or certainly no more than an ILIKEIT reason). Articles don't have a presumption of retention - !votes need to demonstrate a reason. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator seems to have an agenda--he not only has several conservative userboxes on his userpage, he has a pattern of editing Wikipedia in ways that reflect a partisan bias. Take a look at his contributions. The Democratic Freedom Caucus just seems to be his most recent political target since moving on from Ilhan Omar. If deletion is to be considered, that process shouldn't be initiated by someone whose motives are so clearly questionable. But the group is notable enough to have entries in politics-specific wikis, including an in-depth entry at Daily Kos's wiki http://www.dkosopedia.com/static/d/e/m/Democratic_Freedom_Caucus_f8c6.html. 2600:100D:B10C:D47E:1BB8:B5CE:54B0:3F (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is the first edit this IP has made. Toa Nidhiki05 16:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note True. But does it matter? Anyone can easily check for themselves. For whatever reason, Nidhiki05 decided not to say anything that actually addresses the points (not even to deny them!), but instead focuses on this. 2600:100D:B165:1AC7:8CFC:CB0:8C78:F9A1 (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is this IP’s first edit too, and I don’t respond to unfounded personal attacks. Toa Nidhiki05 02:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Note Yes, there's not much of a point in creating an account given how rarely I edit, and I'm using a cellular connection without a static IP. You've proposed to delete a page that's been on Wikipedia for almost a decade, so it's appropriate for people to ask why this process has been started in the first place. Others can consider the points I mentioned, look into them, and make up their own minds about whether the concerns are unfounded or not. 2600:100D:B15F:E6BA:8C7A:990:2577:30B8 (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

‘’’NOTE’’’The guy proposing this for deletion is trying to remove references to Libertarian Democrats on Wikipedia. He previously deleted referenced material about them on the Party’s Wikipedia page and claimed that they aren’t notable.Necropolis Hill (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Incorrect. I removed your addition of this organization as a faction on the Democratic Party page, which has been rejected before. This time, I looked at the page and noticed this particular organization doesn’t meet the standard for notability and had previously been deleted for that reason. I’ve made no other edits on the subject of libertarian Democrats AFAIK. Toa Nidhiki05 15:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage of this organization in mainstream media hence it lacks
notability. TFD (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Possible~~ keep - I saw some references to it in Google News. But if not then let's look at redirecting the page to Libertarian Democrat or something. The history of this article can then be preserved. Karl Twist (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes
WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––

^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, due to some new info and the fact that Democrat Mike Bozarth has been elected to the St. Joseph city council, I would strengthen by vote of Possible keep to a Keep. Karl Twist (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It’s worth noting that Mike Bozarth was elected to one term nearly ten years agao (2006-2010) and is deceased. Toa Nidhiki05 12:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes Mike Bozarth has passed away all those years ago. I still stand by my changing of Possible keep to Keep. Actually he may have passed away in 2015 which is 4 years ago.
See News-PressNOW.com, Oct. 14, 2015 - Liberty movement lost a friend
He must have passed away not long after he received the Karl Wetzel Award for Lifetime Achievement for his over thirty years of activism in support of the Libertarian Party.
See I ndependent Political Report' - Missouri LP 2015 State Convention Wrap Up, New Officers Elected By Cisse Spragins, Immediate Past Chair
So he's worth noting.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have a look at the sourcing. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article, fails
WP:NORG applies but that too.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingFlyer (talk • contribs
) 01.33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment to the above. It's not a promotional article! It just needs a lot more work on it. Karl Twist (talk) 08:34, 25 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Soul Planet

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

I don’t think this studio passed WP:ORG. Some of the people associated with were notable, but in itself it doesn’t seem to have been. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:GNG and currently has only primary sources cited. Needs more coverage.Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:27, 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 merge to Telford Park School. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Diary of a School Teacher

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

Does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Subject is a magazine article (or series of articles? It's rather unclear) which was widely circulated and covered by several news outlets over a few weeks in 2004, but the coverage has since completely died down. No evidence of any

WP:LASTING significance. Paul_012 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Merge/Redirect – To Telford Park School. Will fit nicely within the article and help expand it Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it was covered in multiple reliable sources; ongoing coverage is not a requirement. If not kept, merge into both Telford Park School and Private Eye. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Telford Park School. Even if the Private Eye article is notable, that doesn't mean it should have a standalone article. I don't see much scope for expansion and it can be adequately coverd in the school's article where it is most directly relevant. PC78 (talk) 16:10, 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 result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanwell

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

Cleanwell doesn't appear to be notable. The sources are overwhelmingly primary and a quick google search doesn't bring up a whole lot of independent coverage. The World's Signature (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is promotional and the company does not seem to meet
WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No citations to reliable third-party secondary sources. bd2412 T 20:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I am unable to fin content that is not of as above. Couldn't find any more sourceings. I know the best wiki (talk) 21:23, 26 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Casper Electronics

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies

WP:COMPANY. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any significant sources for this company and do not believe it meets
WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 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 no consensus. This debate suffered from low participation, hence no prejudice to a renomination in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Davis (artist)

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

Non-notable artist. Sourced by weak mentions. Promotional.

talk) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The President of one of the largest - if not the largest - artists' organization in the USA is definately notable enough for inclusion in WP - especially since she has been representing us in the battles against the City of Alexandria's takeover of the Torpedo Factory! 64.26.99.248 (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being president of something does not contribute to notability, unless people write about you. If you have links to articles in newspapers, post them here.

talk) 22:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

My apologies as I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but it seems to us that "Being the president of something does not contribute to notability, unless people write about you", with all due respect, seems to be a short-sighted and far-away viewpoint (Montreal?) which is not aware of the trails and tribulations that the Torpedo Factory artists have experienced over the last few years in their struggles versus the City of Alexandria - and instead of the articles "being about you" (in this case Ms. Davis and/or her successor), the articles and the debate have been about the issues - the multiple issues carried forward by Davis and others, but led by the Presidents of one of the largest artist's organization in the country. Perhaps the article on Davis should focus more attention on that aspect of her artistic presence? I do not mean to start an online argument or debate - but we do mean to try to enter that there are a lot of us here in Alexandria who think that she is indeed notable-enough for a Wiki article. 64.26.99.248 (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We judge notability based on established sources, per

talk) 03:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment leaning to delete, but this is a bit of a mess. Tanya Davis probably doesn't meet
WP:ARTIST, as the awards don't rise to the level expected here, and I couldn't verify the UMD Art Gallery collection. Torpedo Factory Artists' Association is not one of the largest artist associations in the country; it is a 281 member artist center in Alexandria Virginia. It might meet notability, as there are an abundance of passing references in the Washington Post, and other regional papers going back into the 1980s, along with a few in-depth articles, which mostly focus on the recent relationship between the Torpedo and the city of Alexandria. I'm pretty neutral about Davis, and probably would give weak support for an article about Torpedo. --Theredproject (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Things I would want clarification on before !voting to keep:

Is her work actually in Maryland Artist’s Collection, University of Maryland University College

What is the 2002 Art & Antiques Magazine Award of Excellence, and can we verify it (I tried, and couldn't)

Does being a Signature Member of the National Watercolor Society mean much? They list 750 of them on their website, so I'm guessing it doesn't mean much more than being a dues paying member? --Theredproject (talk) 13:10, 23 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 Camellia Institute of Technology. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camellia Institute of Engineering

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

Unferenced, fails

WP:CORPSPAM that fails WP:NORG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Actually appears to be Camellia Institute of Technology, which is an accredited, degree-awarding institution. They seem to be in the same place and do the same thing, so I think CIE almost certainly is CIT. CIT website and AICTE accreditation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. The list of associated schools in the references for

~~Camellia Institute of Engineering, but rename to Camellia Institute of Engineering and Technology?BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- No, that's Camellia Institute of Engineering & Technology. It's in a completely different place. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're entirely right, my mistake. Too many browser windows open. Apologies.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Camellia Institute of Technology per Necrothesp. bd2412 T 20:26, 26 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 awards and nominations received by Girlfriends Films

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

Does not meet

WP:LISTN and excessive intricate detail cited to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails
WP:NLIST, and all of the titles doesn’t even exist as a Wikipedia article. Sheldybett (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. But many of the awards listed her are WP-notable awards with their on WP articles? I don't see how deleting a list article about a WP-notable film studio (it has its own WP-article), which has many WP-notable awards, meets any form of
WP:PAG? In that case, there are thousands of WP film awards lists that can be AfD'ed. Britishfinance (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand the issue here. The studio
XRCO Award? Britishfinance (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

This is not a typical feature in

WP:LISTCRUFT and / or promotionalism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

But this is a film-studio and not just an NCORP. We have lots of WP seperate list articles for film awards. Many of these awards have their own WP articles? I don't see the clear

WP:PAG that is been broken here; in fact, per my comments below, deleting this would violate WP:PAG? Britishfinance (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

I still don't see how this fails

Merge and redirect to Girlfriends Films, which is barely more than a stub. Possibly trim the least notable awards out of the list in the process. bd2412 T 12:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: these PR-driven awards will be undue in the main article, so I would oppose a merge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So because the list includes some -WP notable awards, amongst the many WP-notable awards, you would deleted the whole article? AfD is not clean up, and such issues should be discussed on the Talk Page. That is flawed logic and certainly not consistent with any
WP:PAG that I am aware of. Britishfinance (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. I cannot see this as being a full delete as there are a lot of WP-notable awards being listed here (which are also part of
bd2412 (although somebody then needs to do it, and this list is very long, so it would distort the main Girlfriends Films
article), but certainly not a Redirect, as it would hide lots of WP-notable material?

AVN Award (i.e. "Y"). If there are non WP-notable awards then it can be discussed on the Talk Page but it is not an AfD concern (e.g. AfD is not clean up); however I can point to thousands of WP List articles where not all the items in the list have WP articles. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comment. Just to clarify, of the five classes of awards that Girlfriends Films have been nominated/won in their LIST only one is possibly, a non-notable award class:

AEBN Award

have a section in a WP article

AVN Award

have their own WP article

XBIZ Award

have their own WP article

XRCO Award

have their own WP article

NightMoves Award

have their own WP article

Either the WP-community should come out clearly and state that it does not want PORN-related articles, OR, the WP-community needs to clarify that despite the !votes, WP PORN-related articles that meet

WP:PAG at AfD on porn-related articles? Britishfinance (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:54, 26 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.

Sons of the New Testament

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable political party, never really took off. Admittedly, I am relying on the Hebrew naming within the article but neither names give anything in the way of significant in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability beyond some brief publicity when it was launched; never contested an election as far as I can see (certainly has not contested a Knesset election). Number 57 19:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked. The list was submitted in the 2019 elections. gidonb (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I've just seen it appear on the party lists page. However, I still don't believe it's notable. My preference now would be to delete or merge it to List of minor political parties in Israel. It's not realistic or useful to have perma-stubs on every minor list that's ever contested a Knesset election. Number 57 12:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I only pointed out that the information you provided is incorrect. gidonb (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 19:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Part of Israeli political history, albeit fringe. No reason to delete. Credible sources exist.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All but one of the sources are from a single day on which the party was announced and there is virtually nothing since. It's clearly not notable. Number 57 12:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see coverage throughout 2013, as well as in 2016, 2017 and 2019. Definately not all but one around one day! gidonb (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gilabrand and Number 57. Sheldybett (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sheldybett: I am strongly in favour of deletion. Number 5 7 07:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge reasoning per Number 57, party could be merged into the article "List of minor political parties in Israel". ShimonChai (talk) 05:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ We see a regular flow of new and wannabe political party articles at Wikipedia. This one is pretty typical. It was founded by a non-notable citizen (actual new parties tend to be founded by notable political figures,). The founder, Bishara Shlayan [17], started a twitter account a few months after announcing his new party; he has 11 followers - no indication of notability there. The announcement "Bishara Shlayan, an Israeli Christian Arab from Nazareth who is creating a new Arab political party, says many citizens, including Jews, are contacting him to express their support, and some of them want to donate." However, they "fear to go public with their support, he said." Party had no followers. It got a flurry of news coverage when it was founded. And nothing since. Founder appears never to have been mentioned in the press again. party never ran a candidate. It never existed beyond the announcement made by the man who announced that the had founded it. We cannot even call it a defunct political party. I oppose adding it to a list of political parties because the never was a political party. Feel free to ping me if I have missed some evidence that this "party" existed in my searches. I am always willing to change an iVote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi E.M.Gregory, I believe you asked for a ping when this spans more time and actual candidates run for office. Best, gidonb (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per election filing found by Gidonb.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per available sources it passes the
WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Gidonb Can you provide those sources? Because I've searched and found exactly 0 that satisfy notability. Praxidicae (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae There are excellent references already linked in the article. gidonb (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The blaze is certainly not an excellent source and none of the others are in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to add to that is a 404, is certainly not a neutral, reliable source and at best, what is said about the subject in the others are from POV pieces and not at all in depth. Praxidicae (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the sourcing. It is common that nominators argue with the references and those who disagree with the deletion, even after improvments were made. Withdrawal is less common. Not every nominator is up to this challenge... gidonb (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I withdraw when my point is still valid? The sourcing is still not adequate nor does the appropriate sourcing exist. Praxidicae (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. I think it is more than sufficient. We'll see what others say. gidonb (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion after Gidonb improved the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the new, post-2013 English-language material added to page.

2016 Soldiers under Threat is about Israeli Christians who enlist in the IDF and are threatened by Muslim neighbors. It cites Amir Shalian, one of the founders of the Forum for Christian Enlistment to the IDF, co founder is the cofounder of this party, a cousin, but article doesn't support notability of this political party.
2016 Jewish News Syndicate: [https://www.jns.org/christmas-reality-palestinians-use-christians-as-a-pawn-israel-protects-them/ Christmas reality: Palestinians use Christians as a pawn, Israel protects them: "Shlayan, who is attempting to establish an Israeli Christian political party called Ichud Bnei Habrit (United Allies of the Covenant),..."} This doesn't support notability of the party, still just a guy in Nazareth who is "trying".

Gidonb, if you could be a little more specific, perhaps pull out the exact Hebrew passages that support the notability of the party, and election filing. (And if you could ping me when you do, that would be a great courtesy.) At this point I am pretty skeptical, leaning delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E.M.Gregory.

While referencing the article, I have added or improved 18 references of which about half have

TheBlaze

. Major channels next to popular Jewish newspapers that are now mostly read online.

The two articles that you quote are not part of the

WP:SIGCOV

. That's ok. They still help understand the subject over time, as well as information in the article, and can be discussed. Specifically, the Jewish News Syndicate made on 23 December 2013 an observation that is similar to the one you made on March 1, 2019. To understand where both were right and wrong we have to understand the timeline. After the 2013 Knesset election (January 22) and for the remainder of the year Bishara Shilyan and his movement were heavily covered: they were to establish a party and building a large Jesus statue in Nazareth, while drawing attention to discrimination, intimidation, and violence against Christians in Israel by their Muslim neighbors.

This group organized under the name "Diglei HaBrit" (Flags of the Covenant). So what makes it into a real party? Running of course. Registration as a party in Israel is usually done before elections at the Party Registrar. Did they run? Not in the next cycle of 2015! To be fair, there were extenuating circumstances: these were rushed elections after Netanyahu had basically taken his own government down, yet your comment from March 1 and that of the JNS's journalists were to the point. Neverthless, proof is and should be in the pudding. So the next election cycle the movement did register and does run (right now!), making this a terrible time to delete the article, also in light of the

WP:V coverage. Best, gidonb (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Merge. I cannot really evaluate the hebrew sources with respect to reliability, but there isn't enough material for a standalone article here. A merger into List of minor political parties in Israel would be ideal; failing that, deletion would be my next preference. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this because many of the "keep" comments are not exactly policy compliant (or even understandable).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 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 redirect to Lamar Consolidated High School#Athletics. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lamar Consolidated Baseball

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

Appears to fail

WP:NTEAM: "Since notability is not inherited, the notability of an athlete does not imply the notability of a team or club, or vice versa." A Google search returns pretty routine coverage, which is perhaps to be expected for a high school sports team. Cubbie15fan (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a pretty standard high school baseball program. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lamar Consolidated High School#Athletics and merge any information there as appropriate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:48, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Nelson Lee

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local newspaper obituaries aren't enough to pass
WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Another junk article created by Billy Hathorn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 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 result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tingle

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

Failed candidate for public office with little coverage. Fails

WP:NPOL

.

^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

^(talk) ^(contribs) 21:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails NPOL and certainly doesn't satisfy consensus on other aspects. With 2 senate elections, there isn't a "biggest election" to redirect to. As a side note, the 2008 section actually reads as if it was written by the other side. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable defeated politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not
talk) 15:16, 26 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.

Ford E. Stinson Jr.

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local judge. Sourced only with local newspaper articles, obituaries and Government records. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another article on a non-notable local judge created by Bill Hathorn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 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 result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. Allen Carnes

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

Fails

WP:NPOL. Mayor of small town. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:28, 19 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? 14:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article said he was incumbent mayor, but I've updated it with a reference showing he was replaced in 2014 (so he served 2 years). This is a job so minor that 800 people voted for his replacement, and there's no reference for his own election. A failed primary run doesn't confer notability by itself, and the mentions of him in the few independent sources for it doesn't come close to the "significant coverage" requirement of
WP:BASIC. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Clearly fails
WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Mayor of
WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 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.

John M. Robinson (Louisiana judge)

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like most of the Billy Hathorn articles nominated for deletion, there's nothing in the sourcing that implies notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete district judges are rarely notable, nothing indicates Robinson is an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 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.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kickstart CSS library

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

This article does not appear to meet the

WP:GNG as lacking a significant presence in independent reliable sources. Izno (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any coverage aside from in-house docs and listings. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable subject with no significant coverage available anywhere. --RaviC (talk) 20:33, 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 result was delete . Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudina Suti

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

I want the page on my name to be deleted, because I am not a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudinaSuti (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability not established. Mccapra (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 20 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 redirect to

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Luciana Galvez

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another article about a character which consists almost solely of plot lines, very little out there about the real world notability of the character. Should be a redirect, but an editor is insisting on creating this article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I nearly nominated it for deletion myself last night but decided to consult another NPP instead. This character lacks the sort of real world significance Wikipedia demands these days. Personally I liked the "old days" when we had these sorts of character articles but this is clearly outside of current community norms and for good reason. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fear the Walking Dead characters per Barkeep49. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 24 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.

Margaret Walters (folk singer)

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

Australian folk singer towards end of her career. Fully fails

WP:MUSICBIO (never nationally charted, no major awards, no major write-ups, no major tours etc.). The "External Links" section to her own Official Bio, and her Official Band, also indicate little GNG. Any case for this BLP is very (very) technical at best, but I cannot see a long-term future for this BLP in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My searches confirm NOM's assessment above. There is one sound recording held in the NLA, but, not notable. Aoziwe (talk) 08:29, 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 result was redirect to

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Kushambha

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

Not in source given (either spelling), and appears from what I can see in books to be just a name in a genealogy, a "son", "brother", "father" to others, but not someone with any notability for themselves.

Fram (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amavasu dynasty. There is one source that suggests he is the namesake of Kosambi,"Kushamba"+-wikipedia but I agree that with such limited information, he isn't encyclopedic and a standalone article cannot be written without OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Redirect (or merge) to Amavasu dynasty. The subject appears to relate to myth, not history, so that the only source to provide more information would be the two great Hindu epics. If they said more, I suspect we would already have it, but my guess it that he only appears in a genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 24 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) 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Gandhi Cricket Stadium, Pondicherry

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

University cricket ground which has only hosted university games, no top-level games or notable teams, so fails

WP:GNG coverage. Google search throws up a bunch of mirrors of this article. Spike 'em (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Bs1jac (talk) 12:11, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Gorman (boxer)

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

Non-notable boxer does not meet

WP:NBOX PRehse (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies
WP:GNG, as I pointed out when I removed the prod. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep boxer has had some decent coverage with plenty or articles like this one. Govvy (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments from uninvolved editors needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 11:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of
WP:SIGCOV: BBC Sport. Also interviewed on BBC Radio [18]. Britishfinance (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. I know the Daily Mail is a depreciated RS (rightly), however it is one of the most widely read UK papers: [19] [20]. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 25 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) 18:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Puma Display Team (Switzerland)

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

Not only does this article fail

WP:GNG (its only listed reference a dead link that was supposed to go to the subject's web page and all of its external links go to non-independent and sometimes primary sources, nothing better online), it appears to be subverting the consensus established here to redirect the article's non-disambiguated title to here (no comment on whether this subversion was intentional, although this does mean that the disambiguation is inappropriate) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while nominating the related article F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display (Switzerland), I came across a citation to a reliable source that does actually mention the Super Puma Display Team. However, a short mention in an article in a local paper[21] does not single-handedly make something notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of significant coverage. YSSYguy (talk) 21:39, 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.

Dolly Sharma

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

Fails

Fram (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet
WP:NPOL for inclusion, all the coverge I can find is about her nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails to meet
talk) 21:27, 25 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

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Brexit (cat)

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

Fram (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Excellent point. I vote delete or redirect per Fram. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. The cat has received extensive media coverage in France, the UK, the US, Russia, Germany and probably many other countries, which is quite rare for a cat, and we have many other articles such as Freya (cat). In any event it would be more reasonable to merge & redirect the article to its owner Nathalie Loiseau than deleting it. --Tataral (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Apparently her office has clarified that the cat does not actually exist in response to the media coverage[23]. In light of that: delete or redirect. --Tataral (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ into
WP:ATD. The topic here is not so much the cat as it is Loiseau's joke. Loiseau's article is currently quite thin and so there's no need for a spinoff yet. Andrew D. (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

If the cat doesn't actually exist then I'm going with Delete as the Loiseau article already has a mention of her joke. Andrew D. (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, I guess? There is definitely coverage, although I find a silly joke about a cat's name pretty weak material for a topic. I might argue this cat is famous because the owner is of note and therefore a merge is best, but you can't really prove the owner's fame is why the coverage occurred. Sometimes cats just get famous, or the Daily Fail is low on child dismemberment stories for the day. I also think that at some point WP:GNG works best without convolutions or complications, where reliable extensive coverage = notable, silliness aside. MidwestSalamander (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG requires sustained coverage, not a one-day or one-week article across the world, but evidence of lasting notability. There are many silly, endearing, spectacular, ... things which get their 15 minutes of worldwide fame, usually in the pages with unimportant news or as clickbait online. These things don't meet the
  Fram (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete per
WP:RECENTism based on a single joke. Mélencron (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Merge~~ to
WP:BLP1E on its own. What little coverage and information about the cat comes from Loiseau's joke. Better to incorporate that coverage into her article. Bkissin (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Wait, if the cat doesn't exist, why does the article exist? Delete Bkissin (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nathalie_Loiseau#Personal_life where the joke is covered. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. Fine with a redirect, though am also nervious about the redirect with the infinitely more notable base topic. SportingFlyer T·C 05:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep this beautiful article. Buster Reynolds (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Buster Reynolds. Short, sweet, a good article. Must we devour our own best short works? --Doncram (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nathalie Loiseau#Personal life a joke that can and should be merged into the reason for notability which is the BLP. Widefox; talk 15:34, 25 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) 18:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G-Core Labs

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

De-prodded without rationale, original PROD rationale was "Most of the coverage has been on one of their products, G-CDN, which may meet

WP:CORPDEPTH for G-Core Labs itself." SITH (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient in-depth coverage in

WP:NCORP

. The Guinness record might be a claim to fame, except that it doesn't mention this company at all; the claim that the company was involved in it is sourced only to one of its own press-releases ("Our content delivery network is the fastest and leading in Russia") which anyway does not make any mention of Wargaming or World of Tanks. This is also

paid-editor disclosure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:21, 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 soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

EnPowered

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

Small startup. Per sources in the article, in 2016 it had a staff of one. Per their crunchbase profile they currently have 11-50 employees. Fails

WP:NCORP - specifically the cited sources in the article are not reliable, not independent, or not in depth (or a combination thereof). Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:52, 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 redirect to

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Smashing the Opponent

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

No major coverage of this single, never charted or received any awards. Fails

WP:NSONG. Sources found via Google are only passing mentions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply