Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 3

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.

Untitled Brad Anderson project

Untitled Brad Anderson project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThere are some good sources here to help show its notability with a notable cast'dorector, and it passes NFILM. Perhaps most importantly is that the fact that principal photography has begun. SIt is a shame that it doesn't have an official title yet, but that isn't a reason to delete supported by any policy. It passes notability guidelines, ergo it should remain. Cindlevet (talk) 23:12, 2 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.

Untitled Drake Doremus film

Untitled Drake Doremus film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Speedy keep completely absurd rationales. A film doesn’t need to be titled to have an article, it does need to pass
  WP:NFF, which it does. Seriously, this article has to be deleted because it doesn’t have a title yet? That’s a new one. Also whereas TOOSOON is an essay, meaning it’s not really enforceable, NFF is a guideline. Rusted AutoParts 23:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nope. The core thing that is normally required for a film article is that the film has been released. The "principal photography" test only applies to a very rarefied tier of extremely high profile films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which get a lot more production coverage than usual, and does not automatically apply to every film just because you can single-source the fact that photography has started — even films that have started photography can still fall apart and never actually get released at all. If a film isn't getting a hyperinflated Next-Star-Wars-or-Marvel-film volume of coverage throughout the production process, then the notability test it has to pass to qualify for an article remains that the film has been (or is verifiably close to being) released. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This film has completed principal photography so it’s not falling apart now and is being sold to distributors. This is so misguided of you to think that because it’s untitled and unreleased it fails notability. It has received media coverage. Not every gets the Star Wars/Marvel treatment. Does not mean it doesn’t meet general notability guidelines in addition to NFF. Rusted AutoParts 00:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title or release date yet. Rusted AutoParts 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 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. Sandstein 07:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Noah Baumbach project

Untitled Noah Baumbach project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Userfy or Draftify till it has a title. The film has been in post-production since March 2018, and will be released this year. Baumbach has a habit of not titling his films until very near release. This one has significant enough coverage, but there have been previous films called "Untitled Noah Baumbach Project", so it's best to keep this off mainspace till it has a title. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep completely absurd rationales. A film doesn’t need to be titled to have an article, it does need to pass
  WP:NFF, which it does. Seriously, this article has to be deleted because it doesn’t have a title yet? That’s a new one. In addition, TOOSOON is an essay, NFF is a guideline. The core thing that is require for a film article to be in mainspace is if we can source its filming. For this films case it has finished filming and has been bought by Netflix to be aired later this year. It has zero risk to fall apart at this point because the film has been shot. It is waiting for it’s release. The nomination seems to feel every project needs Star Wars tier coverage to exist before its released, and that’s a an unrealistic expectation. As long s we can source the major aspects that it needs to be considered notable, than it should be able to stand as its own article. This employs this ridiculous, unrealistic expectation that every future film article needs Star Wars tier coverage to exist in Wikipedia before its release. What’s more beneficial to the reader: giving them an article about an impending film prior to release? Or withholding it because it’s not Star Wars? Rusted AutoParts 23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nope. The core thing that is normally required for a film article is that the film has been released. The "principal photography" test only applies to a very rarefied tier of extremely high profile films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which get a lot more production coverage than usual, and does not automatically apply to every film just because you can single-source the fact that photography has started. If a film isn't getting an inflated Next-Star-Wars-or-Marvel-film volume of coverage throughout the production process, then the notability test remains that the film has been (or is verifiably close to being) released. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is total selectiveness, or cherry picking as you said in another of these discussions. Nowhere in the guideline says the film has to be Star Wars tier covered to meet guidelines. It needs to be reported in (casting news, directing news), and of course filming citations. This has that. It passes the requirements. Rusted AutoParts 00:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the standard that a film had to meet to qualify for an article, then every film that any film director ever even started would always qualify for an article on that exact same basis, because we can always find one source to confirm that production has started on absolutely every film (including many that never got released at all) — which is why that isn't the notability test for films. I'm 100 per cent correct about what the notability test for films is: either they get an outsized volume of production coverage much greater than most films get, or you wait until they're released. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re sensationalizing to justify your misguided point, as well as misconstruing just general production with principal production.

WP:NFF is clearly if we can’t source its filming it can’t be in mainspace. All these articles you’re attacking are meeting the appripate requirements to exist and they all seem to share the same thing: they are untitled. That’s not a sound reason to decide it’s not notable. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not "sensationalizing" anything — it's a plain hard fact that if all we had to do to make a film notable enough for a standalone article was single-source that principal photography had commenced, then every film would always get an article at exactly that point in the timeline even if it never gets released at all. Which is why it's a plain hard fact that our notability criteria for films work exactly the way I said they did: a few especially high profile projects that get a lot more production coverage than normal, like the Star Wars or Marvel films, get to claim notability once principal photography has begun, but the vast majority of films do not get to claim notability until the film is released. That's not me being sensationalist, or misrepresenting anything or being selective: it's the established consensus around how the notability of not-yet-released films works.
And you're also not paying attention if you think I only singled out untitled films, because I also nominated a bunch of unreleased films with titles, or if you think that being untitled was the reason I listed any of the untitled ones. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you’re just undermining, as you painting it to seem like there’s only one source on the article to prove it’s filming. I’ll include this exact passage from NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by

reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date'. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. Filming had begun and has concluded. Nowhere within the NFF guideline states that the film has to have been released or received a realease date to be notable enough. In my opinion that’s an enforcement of a personal preference in your end. What I posted from NFF is the criteria. Where’s yours coming from? Rusted AutoParts 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not expressing any personal preferences of any sort. I am 100 per cent correct about what the established consensus of Wikipedians is when films come to AFD for debate: the core notability test that a film normally has to pass is that it has been released. A very small elite tier of highly notable films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which generate a lot more production coverage than most films get, can claim special-case notability once principal photography has begun — but not just every film can claim notability on that basis, and the vast majority of films have to wait until they're released. I'm not wrong about this, and I'm not making up my own rules: it's the established consensus of the Wikipedians who participate in film AFDs. It's not enough to just cite the letter of a notability guideline, especially if you're taking it out of context — NFF is part of NFILM, not a standalone statement of its own that can be interpreted indepdendently of the rest of NFILM. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of previous AFDs does not speak for other articles. We may as well toss guidelines out ingeneral if all we should follow is previous AFDs. This entire stance of your is so faulty. 1) TOOSOON is an essay, not an enforceable guideline. 2) a film does not need to be released to receive notability. It can receive traction throughout it's production history. Casting, filming, production details. It all plays hand in hand. To set your standard of it needs Star War notoriety is absurd. NFF and NFILM do not support your claims. AFDs do not dictate the fate of other articles. If you wanna change what the criteria should be, go for it. Don't try and change what it is based off what you think it should be. I have combed through NFILM countless times, and it always has been dependent on when the film entering the filming part of production, not when it is released. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, read

WP:ONLYESSAY

. For starters, guidelines are also essays, so are not more "enforceable" than essays are: they carry exactly the same weight as each other, and are not dismissable just because they're essays.

Secondly, AFDs are where inclusion and notability standards get tested and determined or revised — notability guidelines, in fact, often lag behind significant changes in consensus. So in the event of a dichotomy between your perception of what a notability guideline says and the actual results of actual AFD practice, the AFD results take precedence over the guideline statement, not vice versa.

Thirdly, nothing I have said in this discussion represents me trying to impose my own opinion about what the standards should be instead of what they are. I am 100 PER CENT CORRECT about how the notability standards for films work: the core test is that the film has been, or is very close to being, released, and notability during the production process attaches only to an elite tier of highly notable films that generate a lot more coverage during the process than most other films do. Not because I said so, but because established consensus said so. NFILM has never extended automatic permanent notability to every film as soon as principal photography started; for one thing, even films that do start principal photography still don't always invariably ever actually get released at all, and for another, even some films that do get released still don't always actually get over the notability bar: some completed films only ever get screened at a buyer's market, or the "local amateurs" programming stream at the filmmaker's own hometown film festival, without ever actually picking up any commercial distribution at all. So no, the commencement of principal photography is not the notability bar for most films: it's enough for a select few very high profile projects, but not for every film that exists at all — the vast majority of films do have to wait until they're released. This is not my opinion: it's established Wikipedia consensus. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep saying you're "100% correct", I'll still 100% disagree. An article needs reliable sourcing to prove it`s existence and prove it`s notability. These articles have that. The release date criteria is one part of a bigger criteria. To only say that the release date dictates it is so very wrong. We clearly disagree and all this is is us going in circles. If it's determined it can't exist in mainspace whatever, move it to draftspace. Don't do away with so much information that will have to be tracked down all over again. Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses two" — it also tests for several factors besides the raw number of footnotes present in the article, such as the range and depth of what the coverage represents and the context of what the coverage is being given for. It is simply expected that every film that enters the production process at all can always show a couple of routine sources, such as a casting announcement and/or a blurb confirming that the film has started shooting — so a film does not automatically cross NFF's "additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" bar just because the article has two or three footnotes in it. If that were all it took, we would always have to keep an article about every single film that ever started principal photography at all, even if it was never actually released. What it takes to get a film past that gate while it's still in the production pipeline is the provision of much more sourcing than most films can routinely show, such as a film that can show dozens of distinct sources rather than just two or three. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make that quote about footnotes as if I ever said that. I didn’t. I don’t advocate for every single film that has entered principal photography to be made into articles I advocate for the ones that can be tied back to multiple different citatations reporting in different aspects of its development and production. Some never get reported on, most do. And those most are the ones I create articles on. These three you targeted are reliably sourced to verify it’s notability. Target the ones that can’t verify squat. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who said that a film is notable enough for an article as soon as one source has confirmed that principal photography has begun, ignoring the facts that (a) very few films could ever actually not show that, and (b) even the sources that confirm the commencement of principal photography are almost always either press releases from the producers themselves, or thinly-veiled summary rewrites of them, rather than actual third-party journalism. To get its notability advanced from the standard "once it's been released" to the special "while it's in production", a film requires much, much more, wider and deeper coverage than just the basic routine production announcements that every film can always show. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the criteria in NFF. I followed the criteria that a film has to be filming to exist as an article. At no point in the 7-8 years I've been making film articles has the rationale that "it must be released" been applied. Because people can generally agree that the notion a film must have Star Wars coverage in order to exist is unreasonable and comparing two different types of movies. Like I said before, all this is is us talking in circles. We disagree, we'll see where the discussion goes. I wish that before you made these deletion discussions that you considered the WP:ATD:alternate paths other than deletion, like returning to draftspace or making a motion for it to be redirected (yes, i undid your redirection for the Breaking Bad film, doesn't mean a discussion about it being redirected couldn't have taken place), so that the information can actually be preserved as opposed to erased. You may not care, but it actually took time to compile this info. Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Look, I doubt I have many (if any) edits on the articles that were put up for deletion, but I felt compelled to put my view on several discussions across, because I felt they definitely passed notability guidelines today. I do find it very poor form from users when they would rather delete hours of work rather than try to come to another solution as Rusted AutoParts says. You can disagree that these articles should be in the mainspace, sure, but to want them deleted comes across as exceedingly arrogant. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, ATD is hardly a trump card in an AFD discussion: AFD is precisely the forum that's empowered to determine whether deletion, or some other alternative, is the appropriate course of action over disputed content. If I redirect a film to a related topic and you disagree and revert me on it, then AFD is exactly the correct place to go to test for other people's input on whether it's redirectable or deletable or keepable — which is not to say that AFD always has to weigh in before redirection can happen in the first place, but once two editors have disagreed over redirection then an AFD discussion is an appropriate course of action to resolve the dispute.
And by the same token, AFD is exactly where one has to go to get a consensus to move a page from mainspace into draftspace in the first place — it's not a thing any user can just arbitrarily do to any random page (for one thing, if I had tried it you would have reverted me on that too), or a thing that the

requested moves

process is empowered to even consider, but a thing that requires an AFD discussion to come to a consensus that sandboxing is desirable. ATD certainly covers off the fact that there are more options beyond just "keep" or "delete" that AFD can consider — but it's not an argument against ever having an AFD discussion in the first place, because AFD is very often the most appropriate venue for having the discussion about whether content should be kept or deleted or redirected or draftspaced.

And secondly, the standard

WP:NFILM test has never been that any film can always have an article as soon as one source has been added that confirms that filming has started. I can entirely believe that you perceived the notability standards for films that way — you've already made that very clear — but that's never been the consensus position about where the notability bar for films is. As I've stated many times, the vast majority of all films that enter the production pipeline at all can show a blurb in the trade papers announcing that photography has commenced, and a casting announcement or two — with the potential exception of the debut short films of recent film school graduates whom nobody has ever heard of before, as soon as a film director is actually a known quantity every new film they undertake will always have casting and photography announcements show up in the trades. {Even films that completely fell apart and never actually got released, and thus don't qualify to keep articles at all, can usually also show that two or three or four pieces of production coverage happened before the production fell apart!) So the notability test for unreleased films is not, and never has been, that they're fair game for Wikipedia articles as soon as a couple of casting and photography announcements have shown up in the trades — the bar for most films has always been that we can properly source that they either have been or are about to be released to theatres, and to be deemed a special notability case any earlier than that a film has to have received an unusual volume of production coverage that plainly makes it significantly more notable than most other unfinished film projects. I acknowledge that you perceived the cutoff differently than the weight of established consensus did — but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about what the weight of established consensus actually is. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

You use a lot of words to just keep repeating what you’ve already said. Are you just looking to have the last word or something? I get your stance, and I’ve said mine. I wasn’t talking about ATD as some “trump card”, I was lamenting that I wished this didn’t immediately become a deletion discussion. But it’s the case now so it doesn’t matter. Again, I’m done talking, let’s wait for the results. Rusted AutoParts 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails our standards for notability of films. Lots of failed projects, non-notable flops, etc. get minor coverage in the trade press, without thus becoming notable. If it is released, and gets some real coverage, then an article can be created. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail the standards at all. It’s verifiably sourced, and has concluded filming, the core requirement for

WP:NFF. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title yet. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I won’t bother to read the duel going on in the comments, but the fact is this is Too Soon. Point blank. Just because there are casting reports coming out doesn’t mean this is worth keeping right now. Nothing verifiable is known about this project and not one frame has been shot. Trillfendi (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: You should’ve read it then. Here’s shots from filming back in March last year. The film has been done filming for quite awhile. This vote worries me as it seems you didn’t even read the article in question. Rusted AutoParts 07:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I’m being ignored on this point. It had been filmed, this vote is for a completely inaccurate reason. Rusted AutoParts 07:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film has obviously been shot, a simple Google search shows pictures of Driver & Johansson filming, so does this mean every film article currently in production or due for release for this year has to be deleted until the day of release? Also all the sources of the casting are reliable. What's the point in deleting?

talk) 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep There is significant coverage of the film in reliable publications, such as The Hollywood Reporter. Moreover, despite what Trillfendi says, principal photography has begun (and indeed finished a year ago) with sources present supporting this. One argument from Softlavender is that it should be draftified as it does not have a title, but that seems a pretty tenuous argument to remove it from the mainspace. The project is from a well-known director and has a well-known cast, so overall I feel it is definitely notable enough to pass NFILM, and should be kept. Cindlevet (talk) 22:23, 2 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.

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

)

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

Fictional character with from what I can tell has no notability at all. Might be a redirect at best. Wgolf (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/merge with You (Kepnes novel). Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with You (Kepnes novel) - this article is misleading, it has sub-headings that do not have any information beneath them. Vorbee (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with You (Kepnes novel) per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge This unreferenced does not meet notability guidelines, so iI concur with all other prior votes. Cindlevet (talk) 20:22, 10 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. czar 21:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regé-Jean Page

Regé-Jean Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly fails the
  WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 22:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear failure of
  WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Does not meet
  WP:NACTOR, not notable. MA Javadi (talk) 18:25, 6 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLT Architects

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

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

Does not meet

Please note history which shows article went through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process and was approved and moved by an non-involved editor, who did not find COI.Djflem (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YOu obviously don't understand that AFC approval has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a COI or not. Use some common sense. The article was created by

Rusf10 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation and see the history which clearly demonstrates that the non-involved editor User:Sionk created the page, and acknowledge that your claim is false. What you wonder is of little interest.Djflem (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Architectural firm responsible for creation of several major projects.Djflem (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is apparent that the nominator has not followed procedure as outlined in

Wikipedia:BEFORE Djflem (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Will consider it if you explain revision history, noting 3 March version, the date of your nomination, and March version and demonstrate improvements made by you to the article (and thus demonstrate

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing... The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern....

See also Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, so as to avoid it, and please note that preponderance of specific citations for the body of work produced by the firm, which clearly establishes notability, are given inline and are there to verify the list.

• "BLT Architects - American Institute of Architects". www.aiaphiladelphia.org. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
• Hinkelman, Michael. "2nd-generation architectural firm charts new growth strategy". Retrieved 6 March 2019.
• Staff, Casino Style. "Casino Style Magazine - BLT Architects". Casino Style Magazine. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
• "Architects Roundtable:BowerLewisThrower". www.stoneworld.com. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
• "Bower & Fradley awarded for design of International House". Temple University Libraries. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
• "BLT Architects - The Skyscraper Center". www.skyscrapercenter.com. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
• "BLT Architects". www.emporis.com. Retrieved 5 March 2019.

Thanks Djflem (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:"demonstrate improvements made by you to the article", I have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, I find most of your rant to be incoherent, but I will address the list of sources you provided.

• 1. [7] a directory listing- does absolutely nothing for notability
• 2. [8] A interview, not a secondary source.
• 3. [9]- not a well-known publication and written like a press release, so I'm not really sure who wrote it.
• 4. [10]- another directory listing.
• 5 & 6. [11] [12] -a database.

Rusf10 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep, particularly on the basis it won a major award (under its original name), the AIA Gold Medal, in 1970. I've no reason to doubt a long established architectural firm would meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP [13]. Whether or not the original author had a COI is irrelevant. My only question would be whether Bower & Fradley are notable, but BLT Architects are not - being an 'architect of record' does not necessarily mean they designed the buildings, they may simply be the executive architects for the designers. Clarification (i.e. proof) at least, would be required. Sionk (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Spare me the badgering on every !vote. --Doncram (talk) 06:34, 9 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. czar 21:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rugged Maniac Chicago

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

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

non-notable event. COI creator created over two dozen similar articles about other local rugged maniac events. valereee (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Rob Dickens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Atlanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Calgary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Denver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Long Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac New England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac New York City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Northern California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Oklahoma City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Portland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Southern California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac South Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Southern Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Twin Cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Vancouver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rugged Maniac Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• • There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugged Maniac Kansas City Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all in
  WP:SPA author at User:Jsslee#Notable companies I've done work for:. Reywas92^Talk 00:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Reywas92, by all means feel free to add all to this nom, the only reason I didn't nom all was to give other editors a chance to check to see if I was misreading the situation, as I don't sports. valereee (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete all All of the city articles consist of results and local reporting. There isn't even any significant coverage in the main article or Rob Dickens article. The most notable thing I can find is appearing on Shark Tank and getting a deal from Mark Cuban, but that's
  WP:ONEEVENT to me.Sandals1 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete all fails
  WP:WAWARD) 02:44, 6 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. czar 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur Niwas

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

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

I cannot find any places called Gaur Niwas (roughly translated as "Gaur residence") in Sudhowala, Dehradun, as the article claims. The closest reference I found [14] is about a place in Kullu which is in a different state called Himachal Pradesh. The coordinates 30°19′59″N 77°57′39″E seem to show a road. The pincode 248015 is for Sudhowala. The image attached File:BHS Snowfall on January 27th, 2014.jpg is described as "weather In Gaur niwas" but actually seems to be about some school in the US. As I cannot find any references to such a place, I am nominating it for deletion.-- DreamLinker (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually I think the article could be about a building/house and seems like the creator wrote it in good faith. There is one source [15] which says "Gaur Niwas Sudhowala: This is a city centre of sudhowala, developed by Pandit Shri Devi Dutt Gaur", although it is not reliable. Unfortunately I cannot find any other good reference for it.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With no references, this article is spam. A similar article, Toolihalan picks up mentions of roads and a school including the name, but there is no evidence that a village of that name exists. Without the threat of deletion of sub-stub-class articles, WP is in danger of becoming a chat list of unverifiable junk. If a reference in a census document appears, then certainly it should stay. Otherwise, out with it. Rhadow (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence that the said village exists. Tried searching with spelling variants "Gaud Niwas", "Gaur Nivas", and "Gaud Nivas", on nic.in and gov.in. utcursch | talk 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced, and with no evidence that the village exists it's likely a
  hoax. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - Never been to India and article does not provide sources to show the village exists.--SalmanZ (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete The map shows a place called "Mohanpur" but doesn't show "Gaur Niwas" Google searches all appear to be mirrors, Google Books do however seem to show there's a cafe with this name but that probably doesn't meet
  WP:GEOLAND. A place with a population of over 1 thousand and a stated area would expect to easily be found on Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Christopher

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

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

Non-notable body builder, few if any rs with truly meaningful coverage. Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable and the rest are basically photo galleries. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Feezo, user:Praxidicae and user:CAPTAIN RAJU

First I would like to thank you for your contribution and correction in the article.

Casey Christopher is a bodybuilder is a model from Milford, I took this information from his official website. This body builder and model come to my attention when articles about him started publishing in Indian news portals and website.

Its not true that all the links are not-reliable (some of the links might be). Npcnewsonline.com is a reliable source. Muscleandfitness.com is 30+ year old US based magazine. Magzter.com is a well known website in India (for proof, please check alexa rank).

I have also posted link of few photos from alamy.com and gettyinages.ca to show that he actually walk on the ramp on new york fashion week and los angeles fashion week. There could be no other proof of him being on these fashion shows.

If you need more proof then I'll search on internet to find more of it.

I'm new to wikipedia, but before writing my first article, I have read the policies. I know what to write and what not. Just trying to be a writer on wikipedia as it always fascinates me. Poojasharma20 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am not getting any response from anyone in this discussion. I want to know what more references I can provide or how can I improve the article or may be style of writing articles. Poojasharma20 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I know basically nothing about bodybuilding. The problem with this article is I don't see significant independent coverage that meets the GNG. Yes he's walked on the runway as a model and appeared on some bodybuilding magazine covers, but I don't think videos and pictures are enough to show notability or even model would have an article.Sandals1 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Sandals1,

How can you comment on an article when you know nothing about the topic. You yourself said, you know nothing about bodybuilding. The references I gave was legitimate references. 1. NPC National Championship : ^[1] (Official Scorecard). npcnewsonline.com is an official website of NPC. 2. Arnold Amateur ^[2] So you cannot doubt on these links.

3. About the magazine covers, the references I gave was from a magazine which has a legacy of over 35 year. These links are not unreliable but proof of the actual (hard copy of magazines printed) magazines : -

• https://www.muscleandfitness.com/features/newsstand/get-july-2018-issue-muscle-fitness
• http://www.malefashiontrends.com/2018/11/casey-christopher-para-adon-magazine.html
• http://fantasticsmag.com/covers/party-boys/
• http://www.mdlatino.com/blog/md_tv/casey-christopher-atleta-mens-physique-con-mdlatino-video/
• https://www.magzter.com/articles/3401/282974/5b24ec26f0ade

4. About the fashion show appearance, there is no other proof then photograph. These photos are not morphed or anything, what else on earth be a proof of him being on these fashion shows other than images?

• https://mikhailveter.com/live/casey-christopher-in-michael-costello-c8elg
• https://www.alamy.com/los-angeles-fashion-week-art-hearts-fashion-held-at-the-majestic-downtown-arrivals-featuring-brad-jason-ho-michael-costello-ernesto-rene-rosales-casey-christopher-where-los-angeles-california-united-states-when-11-oct-2018-credit-sheri-determanwenncom-image224705265.html
• https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/casey-christopher-walks-the-runway-wearing-michael-costello-news-photo/1051938484

5. And the last, these are the few articles and interviews I found on internet about him (some may or may not be reliable sources):-

• https://www.muscleandfitness.com/workouts/workout-routines/its-time-get-rock-hard-shape
• https://www.tellyexpress.com/know-a-lil-more-about-the-famous-body-builder-casey-christopher/
• http://www.mdlatino.com/blog/noticias/casey-christopher-martillando-en-su-condicion-pro/
• https://articles.a1supplements.com/training/abdominals/razor-sharp-abs-casey-christopher/

If still its not qualify to be notable then please tell me what sources do I need? Just looking for guidance.. Poojasharma20 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because (1) there is
  too soon in a career only 4 years at most. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I agree that this appears to be
  WP:NMODEL is contentious, but criterion #1 can be applied: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", where "multiple notable ... other productions" is understood as multiple notable fashion shows - and there must be reliable sources showing that he had significant roles in multiple fashion shows. Photographs by themselves, or on the photographer's website, are not reliable sources. They need to have been published by reliable sources. This person may well appear in reports of fashion shows in reliable sources in the future, but there is no evidence that he has done so yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 10 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. czar 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Music for All

Good Music for All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can’t find any reliable independent sources to support this article. Fails WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails for lack of
  one of many similar companies. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global digital broadcast

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

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

Short-lived defunct company lacking multiple independent sources to verify notability. Mccapra (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no way to
  trade magazines. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: A
  WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete, fails
  WP:GNG. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:08, 10 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.

Wendy Moe

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

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

Previous edits seem to have been done by the subject themselves Equine-man (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A respectable academic, according to this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Google Scholar results are enough to convince me that
  WP:NPROF is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Definitley meets
  conflict of interest notice with this template. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 03:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Meets
  WP:NPROF. Frequently cited by independent sources. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snow keep- Meets
  talk) 03:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)*[reply
  ]
• Keep- sources including Google Scholar search show the article meets
  WP:NPROF Alex-h (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - even if she didn't pass the PROF test, based on the Post and NPR
  sources she passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ryan

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

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

No real assertions of notability in article and no reliable sources addresses Ryan's life or career in detail. Just coverage of her relationships with famous actors Michael Keaton and Richard Mulligan. Nobility is not

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks non-trivial RS coverage to pass
  WP:BASIC. No claim for passing PORNBIO or any other secondary notability criteria. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: fails
  WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete lacks the reliable sources required by the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could not find reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable for stand alone article, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Detele, fails
  WP:NPORN. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:54, 10 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.

Round Hill Music

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

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

High promotional music publishing article. No real references. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @
  WP:ORGIND? Aren't they independent of the subject? Are you counting them as a trade publication? I think this article is particularly hard to square with your nom, since it looks to me like significant (non-routine) coverage. Apparently it even appeared in the print edition. Colin M (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Colin M: I think there is difference between notability and depth and independence of coverage. I have no doubt they are notable. I think it is the usual shallow industry sources that are present for any type od industry. I'll check with reliable sources to see what they say about billboard.com and the article in general. I suspect it is RS, but it not enough. scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have editorial oversight. The rest are very poor. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hello All. Thank you for discussing this. Billboard_(magazine) is one of the most respected music publications and has a robust page here that I have linked. They do not repost press releases without editorial comment and oversight. Additionally, the The_Wall_Street_Journal has written about the company several times. In addition, I would ask that you keep in mind that many reputable companies, who readers and the public at large would like to know about, may not have actively been searching out press or even doing "press worthy" things in their past. Round Hill Music owns and actively helps continue the legacy of some of the most well known songs in the history of western recorded music. Were it not for their active work with those songs and and songwriters, many of them would have likely faded into obscurity. If someone is searching for 'who owns Video Killed The Radio Star' for a piece they're writing in school about changes in the music industry, I would like to believe that the Wikipedia community is interested in having them find the answer here. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Twrch (talk) [[Special:Contribs/{{{Twrch}}}|contribs]]) has been paid by Round Hill Music. 15:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article has been substantially improved since nomination, both in terms of sourcing and promotional tone. References now include in-depth coverage from The Guardian and Billboard magazine, as well as some more routine coverage from other reliable sources. At this point there's no doubt in my mind that
  WP:GNG has been satisfied. Hats off to Scope creep and Twrch (and IP editor 24.205.92.132) for their quality edits to this article over the last couple weeks. Colin M (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nomination Withdrawn Seems to be genuine and some editing to cleanup the article. scope_creep^Talk 02:54, 9 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. After extended time for discussion, consensus is now clear. bd2412 T 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Luca Guadagnino project

Untitled Luca Guadagnino project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 22:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 18:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom it's too soon, sooo many movies get started, even have a cast, but don't actually get made. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:TOOSOON. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:51, 10 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.

Colyer Dupont

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

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

Unable to find multiple independent and reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete The article does not meet the
  WP:NACTOR for being undersourced and no significant impact on the person. Sheldybett (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Several activities that do not provide notability added together still don't provide notability, no substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 5 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. After three relists, no firm agreement has been reached as to what to do with the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bondita Acharya

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

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

I see not a single non-trivial mention over RSes about the subject. Got sparse media-coverage after being subject of a rape/assault-threat; (which though utterly condemn-able) falls under BLP1E at best and thus, disallows an article. ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I agree. Very poor referencing. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am looking for and adding more references to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added references from reliable sources and more information about her work. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG with RebeccaGreen's work... Thanks. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Sock !votes are struck.[reply]
• Keep - GNG satisfied with RebeccaGreen's usual high quality source work. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Rubbish sourcing; give me a day to defend. ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was the last relisting, and even without the struck vote, it would likely be closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep - so you just delete the closure?!?!?! Arguing for changes in closure policy in the edit summary when you, the nominator, remove a closure by an uninvolved editor, is disruptive - not the reasonable closure. If you disagree with the result, appeal it or renominate it after a suitable period. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd missed that that had happened - it's wildly inappropriate. It's a literal involved. @RebeccaGreen: is entirely right - without the sock !vote, it's an NC. RebeccaGreen, the logical route seems to be to ask an admin to take a look at the close, now that it's had some complication built in. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't give a flying fuck about the exact policies; dumb NAC-adventures shall be reverted. Bringing sources (and !votes) on the last day without giving the nominator a scope to defend can be effectively weaponized to game the system. And, fourth relists do happen. ∯WBG^converse 05:20, 11 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.

Chaudhary Ghulam Hussain

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Every journalist who exists in the world is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because his existence verifies in staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers — the notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia is his being the subject of
  WP:GNG all by itself as the article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete. per above. Fails

WP:GNG. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 14:54, 3 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.

Ancel Edwin

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

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

Non notable musician. Does not seem to qualify for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite Edwin being active since 1984, this is the first I have heard of this musician. He has yet to establish major notability outside India.TH1980 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there seems to be no mentions in any media. This is strange for someone who is active since 1984. While there could be a chance that coverage is available in non-English sources (Malayalam), it is unlikely. A notable musician would generally have some coverage in the English language media in India.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Eye Taylor

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

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

Despite cleaning up the article, the subject fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, have any of his recordings charted? Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: None of his records charted. He is based in the U.S and not Liberia. The latter country does not have an official music chart. He has a song with Lil Scrappy but that did not chart on Billboard.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete thanks, in that case I'm voting delete as it seems
  WP:TOOSOON with a lack of coverage such as reviews, for example there is no bio or reviews of him on AllMusic, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No career to speak of. Trillfendi (talk) 18:20, 3 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. czar 21:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raine chawla

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

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 18:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete A
  talk) 05:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Fails both
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 10 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. czar 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Deskin

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

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

Notability questioned via tag since May 2015. Both online and offline source searches ("Gerald+Deskin" Google, Books, WorldCat) only seem to turn up sources published by Deskin, not about him, save for an obituary in a local newspaper. There's little indication that the book he co-authored had a major impact on its field and, conjoined with the lack of major reviews, means he appears to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 13:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 13:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

{talk} 13:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete lack of secondary coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did find this [16] but that is certainly not enough to cover
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:27, 10 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.

Untitled Santosh Srinivas film

Untitled Santosh Srinivas film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Santosh Srinivas or move to Draft:Untitled Santosh Srinivas film. Why rush to delete an article that may only end up being recreated later? There are better ways to deal with this sort of thing. PC78 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:HAMMER Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]