Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 31

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 30 March 1 April >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fremantle Australia. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crackerjack Productions

Crackerjack Productions (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 defunct company; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing

Wikipedical (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Fremantle Australia, its superceding organisation. Not notable in its own right but it is a likely search term and does deserve some due weight content. Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fremantle Australia, as per Aoziwe, the organisation it s non-notable in its own right, even the 2002 lawsuit which failing to meet the notability standards. Sheldybett (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can find some sources, but probably not enough to meet
    WP:ORGCRIT. I think that its founders, Mark and Carl Fennessy, probably are notable, with a long article about them in the Financial Review in 2017 [1], and other articles I found on Trove but haven't seen yet - in the Australasian Business Intelligence in 2010, 'Creative pair shine through at local launch' [2] and again in 2011 'Chance for brothers to shine overseas' [3]; in Inside Film: If in 2008, 'Take Two: Mark and Carl' [4]; and they're included in the Sydney Morning Herald 's 2015 'The Big 30: Australian television's power brokers, innovators and influencers' [5], etc. So, ideally I would probably say merge Crackerjack Productions to Mark and Carl Fennessy - when someone writes that article. Fremantle Australia is a possible merger target for now - although that article has been tagged for reliance on primary sources and being written like an ad for some years, and gives undue weight to Grundy. Having a section on Crackerjack in the Fremantle Australia article would probably help to balance it. (I haven't checked journal databases yet for Crackerjack Productions, so if I find more sources, I will come back.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and redirect to Fremantle Australia Sparebug (talk) 00:58, 7 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Self-Care

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

This article should be deleted per

WP:NOTESSAY as this article is structured like a personal essay. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 23:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - as current content doesn't have any encyclopedic value, its more of a blog entry. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 17:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete,

WP:NOTESSAY, looks like notes for a tutorial/presentation. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - ,The article is not encyclopedic Alex-h (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Umm what?? Where to begin... It's written as though it is a brochure / pamphlet. Not at all encyclopedic. I'm not even sure what the topic is actually supposed to be? Not to mention the

WP:TNT that would be required to salvage it even if the topic were notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

delete agree with above reasons. Sparebug (talk) 01:00, 7 April 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. Note: "keep" a decade ago was already tenuous by current standards. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Newtones

AfDs for this article:
The Newtones (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)

Student musical group that doesn't meet

WP:RS, and they're barely mentioned in a Google site search of their school's website. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:43, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monte J. Brough

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

Per source searches, this subject is not in congruence with

WP:BASIC. Some coverage exists, but not finding two sources that provide significant biographical coverage about the subject. North America1000 12:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:43, 31 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. Note: a "keep" without evidence is not much help. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn J. Featherstone

Vaughn J. Featherstone (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

WP:BLP1E situation as well. North America1000 11:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If he was an important LDS figure, is there any more coverage of him? Say, in print? DS (talk) 17:11, 5 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Stephen W. Owen

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

Per due diligence

WP:BASIC. Quotations, passing mentions and event announcements do not qualify notability, nor do the many primary sources in the article. North America1000 11:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:42, 31 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Lark in the Morning

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

Fails

WP:NORG. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources to establish notability of subject. Rogermx (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:08, 2 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Praszkier

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

Promotional autobiography of an academic. Currently zero secondary sources. Does not appear to pass

WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 TT me 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't really find anything to show where this specific Ryszard Praszkier is notable. He received one review, but this isn't enough by itself to establish notability. His work is occasionally cited, but not enough to where I'd say he could really establish notability per NPROF. To be honest, most of the time when I did pull up this name it was referring to Richard Prasquier, who was born the same year and was originally called Ryszard Praszkier before he changed his name. On that note, if/when this is deleted I would recommend turning this into a redirect to his article since it does seem like there are one or two places that do use his birth name. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:05, 6 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maggi Parker

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

Actress whose sole credit was on Hawaii 5-0. Now she did appear in a in several episodes, so if not a delete, a redirect to Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series) would be the best. (I think actually a redirect be better then a delete) Wgolf (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 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 List of English cricketers (1826–1840). Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillingston (English cricketer)

Hillingston (English cricketer) (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 suppose technically this might meet

WP:NOTCRICKET since it claims he appeared in one first-class match; however, name is unknown, dates of birth and death are unknown, where he's from is unknown, his handedness is unknown, and his bowling style is unknown. I don't see any value in keeping this article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is also listed on CricInfo, but there is no additional information. Searches in likely spots - Wisden, The Times archive, alumni. camb. etc... show up nothing at all. So ultimately we have a surname and an appearance on a single scorecard and nothing else. In those circumstances I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll ever be able to build a biography of any kind or to show the sorts of sourcing required to meet standards. If research ever finds anything on him then we can reverse the redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to add that nobody with this surname appears in any GB censuses of the 19th century. You can assume this is either a non-de-plume or a scorecard error for good measure Topcardi (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in a perfect world, there would be lists of players for all first-class teams - including those without county names and those from outside England. Assuming we are planning to pick and choose articles out of thin air in spite of citable secondary source material, there would be an article for List of A to K cricketers and capacity for a redirect. Barton (A to K cricketer) and Beauclerk (A to K cricketer) also played in this match. Otherwise we may just as well make "Doesn't have a first-name listed" an official inclusion criterion.
In the meantime, while we are busy looking up lesser first-class cricketers from the 19th century, there are still dozens of Test cricketers with no secondary sources listed - let alone those who do. Bobo. 00:14, 2 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D A Huerta1408

D A Huerta1408 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

(talk) 20:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Dugan

Barry Dugan (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 county politician, fails

Rusf10 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:16, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Bennett

Ashley Bennett (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 county politician, fails

Rusf10 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serving on a county board of freeholders is not a role that automatically passes
    WP:BLP1E blip for the human interest aspect of her initial election to office, two are just glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her to any non-trivial degree, and the last is just a videoclip of her speaking. This is not enough sourcing to get a county freeholder into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 2 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucio Fernandez

Lucio Fernandez (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 local politician, does not pass

Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All politicians receive local press coverage. 41 citations from local newspapers doesn't really mean much.--
Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Not notable for any of those things. We have a guideline, its
Rusf10 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Blackmer

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

Fails

WP:GNG GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:22, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fariborz Pakseresht

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

Doesn't appear to pass

WP:GNG. Appointed head of a state agency who's only real coverage is either related more towards the Oregon Department of Human Services than the subject himself or about him replacing the previous DHS director. GPL93 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 1 April 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Norby Telecom

Norby Telecom (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

WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:29, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Darmadi

Franklin Darmadi (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)

Film director I have tried to find info for. So far has just done 2 films (last one was over 10 years ago), only one even has a Wikipedia page. If he continued directing he might be notable. But so far I can't find it. Wgolf (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:19, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Verma

AfDs for this article:
Rohit Verma (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)

For a purported fashion designer, article is more focused on TV and film appearances which generally appear minor. Sourcing is limited at best, with no really strong sources demonstrating notability. I'm not seeing how

Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:48, 1 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Hearn

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

A 30-year-old player with 6

USL Pro. Search results return routine game reports. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:06, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Earman

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

A 32-year-old player with 4

USL Pro league for 68 minutes total. Search results return routine game reports and brief mentions. Leviv ich 19:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:06, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Howes

Lewis Howes (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)

questionable sourcing, does not meet notability threshold BodegaBiscuit (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a mostly self promotional article with most sources being blogs or other simple lists, quotes or mentions that are not first-tier sources nor profiles of the subject himself.  2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:70 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotional article. Very weak sourcing much of which is misleading and barely mentions the subject. 50.245.177.163 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is not notable and promotional which likes an advertisement for then brand.Serendipity1201 (talk) 03:14, 3 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh MacDonald (soccer)

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

A 33-year-old player with no

MetroStars (now called Red Bulls) but released a few months later with no first team appearances. Search results returning the team's signing announcement and release announcement amid a couple other passing mentions. Leviv ich 18:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This individual clearly fails those notability requirements and the article will doubtless be deleted, so not sure what the relevance of this comment is here. Jellyman (talk) 07:11, 2 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Stenta

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

A 32-year-old player with 2

USL PDL and National Premier Soccer League. Search results returning only routine game reports. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:05, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Tolchinsky

David E. Tolchinsky (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)

Highly advertorialized

WP:ELNO compliance just now, the article was otherwise a stank nest of offsite links to the self-published websites of organizations and people named in the article. As always, however, the inclusion test on Wikipedia is not what the article says, but how well it references what it says -- people are very highly prone to making inflated self-promotional claims of notability about themselves, so the inclusion test requires real media coverage to independently verify that the notability claims are actually true, and is not passed just because of what the subject claims in his own self-published sourcing about himself. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Tolchinsky's page should not be deleted -- a prominent Northwestern University professor, a graduate of Yale and USC, and his films have been seen on iTunes and various festivals and have won awards. He's been written about in The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, Broadway World, Splash, the Village Voice, and others. Tried to delete unverifiable statements and added verifiable references; but could use some help with proper formatting for those references. This article should be expanded. MegaAguirre —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far, far too much of what you've added is still
blogs
. And the only New York Times citation you've added here is not an article about him, but an article about furniture design in which he gets briefly namechecked as a giver of soundbite about chairs — so that's not a source that supports his notability either. Newspaper articles do not automatically support personal notability just because he gave a quote to a journalist in an article about something other than himself — newspaper articles support notability by being about him as a subject.
You've only added two sources that are doing anything at all in terms of establishing his notability, Broadway World and The Daily Northwestern — but Broadway World is "covering" him only in the context of winning the Best Director award at a minor local theatre festival that isn't notable enough to be the notability claim that gets its award winners into Wikipedia in and of itself, and The Daily Northwestern is a university student newspaper. So they're not nothing, but they're not enough — and not a single other source in the entire article besides those two is worth anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't named chair. He is full Professor and was Founding Director and Department Chair. --Theredproject (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That could be serious. I have not run a copyright test in a good while so maybe someone will want to do that. Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500 PROF says: "any one of the following conditions," including 5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."--Theredproject (talk) 17:03, 6 April 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 East Lancashire Coachbuilders. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancs Lowlander

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

Unsourced article on a bus which had never been built - fails

WP:GNG. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:24, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Puri

Pradeep Puri (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. ToT89 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:11, 2 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Alkalay

Yael Alkalay (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 and promotional. ToT89 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:50, 5 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Lesniak

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

Not notable up to wiki standard. Only trivial mentions in some sources. ToT89 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 1 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Dale

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tronbjerg

Chris Tronbjerg (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 isn't automatically inherited because one is a CEO of a multinational corporation. The source searches I cited in my PROD ("Chris+Tronbjerg" 1 2) and further ones in WorldCat and Star show a lack of

Iridescent. SITH (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You should think that it would be possible to find at least a couple of good sources about a man who's had a street in
    São Paolo named after him. Here's the little I managed to dig up regardless of insignificance:
    • Visão (in Portuguese). 1967. p. 83. Retrieved April 3, 2019. mentions him as sales director of Vemag [pt]. Vemag was taken over by Volkswagen do Brasil in 1967.
    • A scan of Correio da Manhã 7 January 1968, mentions him as senior executive (alto dirigente) of Volkswagen do Brasil.
    • Associação de Exportadores Brasileiros (1972). Anais (in Portuguese). Associação de Exportadores Brasileiros. p. 90. Retrieved April 3, 2019. lists him first under the VOLKSWAGEN DO BRASIL S/A heading.
    • A scan of Jornal do Brasil 24 March 1973, has a retirement notice saying (mostly Google Translate): "The oldest employee of Volkswagen do Brasil, Danish-born Chris Tronbjerg, was retired on 7 February. He saw the birth of the national automotive industry 38 years ago, in the same field where the first production line was raised, that of Volkswagen, 20 years ago. He was retired because a company regulation says that people can no longer be employees when they 65 years of age."
    • Death notice in a scan of Jornal do Brasil 6 March 1986.
    • "As origens da Sabrico, o primeiro concessionário autorizado Volkswagen do Brasil". Não é bigorna, é bigórnia! (in Portuguese). July 28, 2016. Retrieved April 3, 2019., a blog, briefly mentions that Tronbjerg helped convince Heinrich Nordhoff
    to sign an agreement for the assembly of Volkswagen in Brazil.
  • All in all, too little to support a stand-alone article. An alternative could have been
    WP:ATD-R with a mention in Volkswagen do Brasil, but I don't feel that the above sources give us a clear picture of the man's role in the company. I wonder what the future will bring in terms of non-English sources becoming available online. Sam Sailor 13:36, 3 April 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. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Daddy, What's a Train?

    Daddy, What's a Train? (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)

    Lacks the necessary indepth coverage in RS. Fails

    WP:NMUSIC. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:53, 31 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Mathieu Jussaume

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

    The article doesn't contain any assertion that would mean the subject meets the presumed notability criteria at

    WP:GNG, but doing a Google search I can't see any significant coverage that would get him over the line there. GirthSummit (blether) 13:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    L. Whitney Clayton

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

    Per

    WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. North America1000 10:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per the recent source and content additions. Based on his participation in a temple groundbreaking [17], at religious conferences [18] [19], and the mention of leadership changes outside of LDS Church sources, such as [20]. While the article could use more cleanup, the individual gathers enough attention to pass
    WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 16:29, 1 April 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Algar

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

    Fails

    WP:NCRIC. Although has played in a T20I for Spain, this was not part of a World T20, Global Qualifier or Regional Final, per point 4. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Ok I agree with Lugnuts on the notability issues of this cricketer and I respect his proposal for deletion because he has written plenty of articles abide by the policies and guidelines. I thought those who have played in the recently concluded 2019 Spain Triangular T20I Series from Spain and Malta except Estonia XI are recognised to be T20 International cricketers from that point onwards. I first of all created for Awais Ahmed who got enough notability after scoring a century in the second T20I match of the series between Spain and Malta. Awais Ahmed has also been included in List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket. It is noteworthy that ICC initially revealed the matches played between Spain and Malta had Twenty20 International (T20I) status, with both teams making their debuts in the format and further went onto announce that all matches played between Associate Members from 1 January 2019 would have T20I status. Sorry for my mistakes regarding the WikiProject Cricket policy guidelines. Abishe (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Abishe - appreciate your feedback. Don't know if this now meets some kind of speedy-deletion requirements, with these comments from the article's creator. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Per nom. Though these matches are T20I's, the standard is so low that the prior guidelines for inclusion of non-Test/ODI nations make perfect sense. It seems that the stats for T20I's are going to take a serious beating, with weaker opponents generally finding it easier to score more runs amongst themselves. StickyWicket (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines. This is true of a huge nyumber of cricket players. We really need to remove many of these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    GNG is weak and meaningless, and contradicted by WP:N which states that an article should be met by either GNG or an appropriate subject-specific guideline. Bobo. 09:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This cricketer has, within the last week, appeared in an ITT match. Does this make this cricketer notable? If at some point the cricketer becomes notable, CSD G4 will not apply - according to the CSD page itself. Bobo. 09:37, 2 April 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thuruthippuram Boat Race

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

    Unsourced non-notable promotional COI article. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:26, 31 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. The nom's concerns have been addressed over the last two weeks with improvements being made to the article and the references being fixed and additional ref's added. The clear consensus here is keep.

    (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Niels Jannasch

    Niels Jannasch (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 pass

    WP:GNG. Of the three references given, only one of them seems to exist; the remaining reference is to a site that mentions his name as a medal recipient. Google News had not a single hit on the name "Niels Jannasch". Google Books shows he is mentioned several times, usually by way of thanks in a given book's introduction or as a museum curator, but I didn't find substantive discussion of him in these sources. A loose necktie (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 10:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 10:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    talk) 10:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Fixed three bad url. Article has at least three good refs now. Lrwilli (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 31 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination.However I would suggest a cooling off period of not less than six months before sending this back up. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Paul Atherton

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

    Fails GNG. Many brief mentions but no in-depth coverage. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Votes

    • Keep. Unfortunately Google can not be deemed a useful source in this instance. It measures popularity and not notability. It's nature of not holding much information and then not for long, means much press about this subject is not shown, with many of the notable events discussed being over a decade old (and many predating the Internet all together). But the press would still be retrievable through such things as the British Newspaper Archive but this research would require an in person search as many of the publications there have yet to be digitised. The Western Mail one of the papers cited on the Bio for example is only digitised up to 1959 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/countries/wales
    But notability as defined by Wikipedia is "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
    I believe under that criteria, the subject's video diary being taken into the permanent collection of
    The British Film Institute and obviously remains the only person to have shown a film on the video Billboards at Piccadilly Circus the cause for the original entry being accepted in the first place. https://londontopia.net/site-news/featured/london-places-10-facts-figures-piccadilly-circus-london-probably-didnt-know/ 144.178.8.38 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Reply Wikipedia has criteria for the notability of
    WP:GNG, which requires significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the bio subject. There seem to have been brief flurries of interest in his being a foundling, or biracial, or disabled, or having a lawsuit, but most of these seem to be a direct result of great energy spent on self-promotion. 16:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs
    ) 16:00, March 24, 2019 (UTC)
    Reply I would counter saying that the only non commercial film to have garnered permission to be screened on one of the world's most famous advertising hoardings Piccadilly Lights in one of the world's most popular tourist attractions
    The British Film Institute
    undeniable makes them significant and by association the person who produced and directed them.
    "An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download
    4.2 Cultural significance
    25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.
    26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.
    27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content."
    As for the subject's diary (albeit in Video Form) being accepted into the Museum of London with a supporting exhibition about its inclusion, again, clearly makes the subject notable along with the likes of the diarist Samuel Pepys whose diary (albeit a copy) is also in the collection
    "The Museum of London’s collection, called the London Collection, has developed over the last 190 years. It is the world’s largest relating to a single urban centre over a 2,000 year period and the most important source for the material evidence of London’s history. It includes collections from two precursor museums: the Guildhall Museum and the London Museum." Museum of London Collections Policy
    Again, I would suggest your contentions are giving too much weight to the
    Search Engine or what is found online and not recognising the import of curatorial decisions by globally recognised institutions. 144.178.8.38 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    You said,

    ...the only non commercial film to have garnered permission to be screened on one of the world's most famous advertising hoardings Piccadilly Lights in one of the world's most popular tourist attractions Piccadilly Circus is indeed notable in its own right."

    No, it's not. We evaluate Notability using Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and there's nothing in the guideline about world-famous tourist attractions.
    You said,

    The Museum of London’s collection, called the London Collection, has developed over the last 190 years. It is the world’s largest relating to a single urban centre over a 2,000 year period and the most important source for the material evidence of London’s history. It includes collections from two precursor museums: the Guildhall Museum and the London Museum.

    This is all completely irrelevant. You puff up your arguments here, without regard to what policy says. How long the London Collection has been around, or how large it is, or how important it is, is not connected with Wikipedia's policy on Notability. Ditto Picadilly Circus. Please quote policy and guidelines about notability, not the importance of your sources from some non-Wikipedia source.
    Here's what
    WP:ARTIST. You're closest on (d); find a couple more substantial exhibitions in other museums, and you may have it. Even if not, it may still meet some other portion of the Notability guideline, but you'd have to demonstrate that it does. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Reply This statement would imply an edit rather than a delete. Any comments in respect to the notability of the subject being included in the Museum of London? 144.178.8.38 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, here. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of
      collection of trivia. This is from the first a piece of overly self serving spam. Exaggerating, presenting run of the mill as noteworthy, peacocking. This needs a dose of TNT even if he is notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Reply I would suggest your comments are about the past ten plus years of
    Wikipedians editing rather than whether the subject is notable or not (which is the contention of the Deletion request) duffbeerforme. Any comments or thoughts about the significance of the subject's diary being deemed worthy of (as far as I can see) being the only video-dairy collected into the Museum of London's permanent collection (see collections policy above)?144.178.8.38 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Does not meet
    WP:NARTIST. See above. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply Out of interest, I just did a News Google search using "Paul Atherton" & "Producer" and found the following four articles, I'm not sure if it's relevant, but the link in the AfD does not find them (January 2017 - March 2019) and I'd argue whilst they are not substantive, it does demonstrate the problem with search engines.
    The Ballet of Change
    ..." - 16 January 2017
    The Sun (United Kingdom) - What Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? "...Other celebs that are believed to battle with the condition include film producer Paul Atherton" - 16th June 2017
    The Guardian - I allow myself a mini-wallow': how to handle rejection in the arts "...this worked for Paul Atherton, an experienced producer and managing director. After he missed out on a “heaven sent” opportunity to co-write a play with his favourite playwright..." - 9 August 2018
    Tate Modern - Talk - Welfare and the digital lie, problems of Digital Exclusion for the poor and the vulnerable in the UK by Paul Atherton FRSA - Beta Society in Tate Exchange - 6 March 2019
    The Londonist - Things To Do Today In London: Wednesday 27 March 2019
    - "WITHOUT A HOME: An Evening With Paul Atherton" - 27 March 2019
    -144.178.8.38 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, they're not substantive. Find ones that are, or that meet some other aspect of
    WP:GNG. Your assertion that "it does demonstrate the problem with search engines" is irrelevant even if it were true; technology failure is not an argument that helps you establish notability. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Discussion

    The article

    !votes
    here, please; just discussion about references.

    References synopsis

    Synopsis of selected citations from version 889204249. (Numbers are clickable.):

    • References in the lead
      • 1. The following appears in the page html code, but is not visibly rendered and is visible to search engines only: "2007 Paul Atherton’s short film 'The Ballet of Change,' exploring the history of the Circus, premieres on Coca-Cola’s LED ad space."
      • self-publishing site
        "about.me".
    • Selected references in the Early life section:
      • 3. covers his adoption as an infant in Wales Online, and 4 is substantially the same.
      • 5. A short film which appeared on 4thought.tv but is not available at the given url; the film at the web archive url cannot be played currently, but from the archived viewer comments, it appears to be a short film interview about PA's transracial adoption.
      • 6. A biography printed in The Big Issue street newspaper in 2008. Is this sufficient to meet GNG?
      • 9. A deleted vimeo promotional trailer for the documentary film "What About Me?" about chronic fatigue syndrome by Double D Productions. I'm unable to play the archived copy, but a text link points to whataboutme.biz, which renders a GoDaddy expired domain name page.
      • 10. Dead link to Cardiff Uni Mag. (web archive non-responsive)
      • 11. Incompletely specified citation to Sun newspaper, cannot verify.
      • 12. Incompletely specified citation to Vogue magazine, cannot verify.
    • Selected references in the Career section:
      • 13. PA is the recipient of a "lucky break" of four weeks work experience after being made redundant. 4rfv is an "online directiory for the the broadcast, TV and Film Industry" in the UK, and appears to accept user-submitted content.
      • 14. Sign-in required, but appears to be from the letters-to-the-editor section from Broadcast (magazine).
      • 15. YT video uploaded by PA.
      • 16. An opinion column in the Guardian by PA about Katharine Birbalsingh.
      • IMDb
        .
      • 18. Duplicate of 17, on the interviewer Dana Knight's blog.
      • 19. The ref is styled as "Paul Atherton, Q&D Productions (January 2016). 'Our London Lives'" but is a link to about.me/paulatherton, same as #2.
      • 20. YT video uploaded by PA
      • 21. Links to "Online Shop" for "Elastic Knitting Woolen Woman's Ankle Boots..." Archived 10 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine contains short blurb about PA as director/producer.
      • 22. Dead link due to spurious trailing '=', but video exists on YT and is a promo for "Meet the Critics". PA appears at 0:39 for 1 second, saying, "Meet the Critics" as one of a dozen or so personalities saying that phrase.
      • 23. Dead Twitter link for lineup of Meet the Critics.
      • 24. Eventbrite announcement for "Meet the Critics".
      • 25. Dead Twitter link.
      • parked domain
        page. Orig url not archived.
    • Selected references in the Personal life section:
      • 27. Dead link redirects to Telegraph home page. Available on web archive; article by PA about 2012 Olympic games.
      • 28. YT clip uploaded by PA.
      • 29. Dead link, not on archive, not discoverable on web, from 2012 Olympics documents.
      • 30. Soft 404 at wendyperriam.com; the soft 404 archived as such at web archive.

    (This is as far as I got for now; 25 refs remain to be added here.) Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss references

    The following can be discounted as not contributing to Notability:

    • YT videos: 15, 20, 22, 28 (these are also all SPSes by PA)
    • Unrecoverable dead links and soft 404s: 10, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30
    • Unverifiable: 11, 12. Possibly someone with access to archived newspapers could hunt these down.
    • Articles by the subject of an article (16, 27) generally do not establish notability.
    • Self-published material: 2, 19
    • Trivial mentions (judgment call): 1, 22 probably many of the others

    Possibly establishing notability:

    • independent bios: 6 - He's in this paper as "former homeless makes good"; is this sufficient to establish N?
    • difficult childhood: 4, maybe 5 - I'd say these aren't sufficient to establish notability. Local papers have lots of human interest stories of this type, and generally they do not have articles on Wikipedia.
    • disease: 9 - having fatigue syndrome and being the subject of a human interest article about it, is similar to the above.
    • special case: #1 text is visible to search engines, but not to humans viewing the page. Can it still contribute to Notability?
    • I don't currently see anything as definitely establishing notability, but the street news bio (6) is the strongest contender, imho, among the first 30 refs. He may meet
      WP:ARTIST 4(d), if two additional galleries or museums can be found with his works in their permanent collection. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 5 April 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. After a rather lengthy discussion it's clear that there's no consensus to delete. The conversation has been relisted once and garnered some more thoughtful discussion which makes the consensus clearly a keep.

    (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    These Heaux

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

    The self-released debut single by Bhad Bhabie peaked at #77 on the Billboard Hot 100 and certified gold, but there is a lack of non-trivial coverage. Although there are many mentions of the song, particularly in articles about the artist, the song itself does not receive in-depth treatment. The most in-depth article is from Maxim: [21], but it's really just a description of the video and quotes from the lyrics, not an actual musical review. The other references are generally two-paragraph mentions announcing the song's release, or focusing on a "diss" in the song relating to a feud between the artist and some other celebrity. We don't have enough sources to write a stand-alone article about this song, although the artist is notable. The article These Heaux should be redirected to and merged with the article Bhad Bhabie. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per charting on multiple country’s all-format song charts, including the
      WP:GNG. (And this is from someone who absolutely hates this song too.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      "Ludicrous"? Doesn't
      WP:NSONG explicitly say that just because a song charted or is certified doesn't mean it's automatically notable? 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) and Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    I don't feel like getting into the exact same argument at three different AfD's, nor should I have to. Since the nominator is accusing people of not understanding policies, here are a couple that are also relevant:
    WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If we write a stand-alone article about every song that RIAA certifies Gold, we will be writing over 1,000 new stand-alone song articles per year, >100 per month, >3 per day, almost all of them will be stubs, and we will become an RIAA catalogue. Not my vision of what an encyclopedia should be. I believe we must have sources from which to write an article, not just write an article about any song that charts. Leviv ich 19:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the way you frame things baffles me. Three articles created a day, for a topic as broad as “songs”, on a website that hosts 5.8+ million articles, is not a lot. And no ones saying we don’t need sources. We’re saying, songs don’t sell half million copies, and get national radio AirPlay, and the don’t get noticed by three or so RS journalists out there. The premise is highly improbable - it’s ridiculously impractical to think that it sold that much and it flew under the radar. There are almost certainly sources in existence, so cleanup is more appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Source assessment table:
    Source
    Independent?
    		 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
    GNG
    ?
    XXL 1 Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 ~ 10 sentences, most describing the music video ~ Partial
    XXL 2 Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 3 sentences about the song (2 stating that it charted); 8 sentences total ✘ No
    The Wrap Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 8 sentences: 2 quoting the lyrics; 3 about the artist; 1 about the release of the music video, and the other two are: To be fair, it actually could be much, much worse. And either way, it's a pretty short song. ✘ No
    Alternative Press Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 2 sentences about the song; 6 sentences total ✘ No
    Maxim Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication ~ Celebrity/gossip magazine not on
    WP:RSP
    , not widely used as a source (~500 insource search results)     		No 15 sentences; about half are direct quotes of lyrics ✘ No
    In Touch Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication ~ Celebrity/gossip magazine on
    WP:RSP
    , not widely used as a source (~500 insource search results)     		~ 7 paragraphs: 4 quoting "diss" lyrics; 3 about the "beefs" relating to those "disses" ~ Partial
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    • Comment – here is a source assessment table for These Heaux. Arguments about charting and certification aside, we do not have any material from which to write anything beyond a stub-length article. All we can say about this song is that it charted/certified, and who was in the music video. The artist is widely covered, but the song is not. This song came out almost two years ago (August 24, 2017); it's highly unlikely there will be more coverage in the future of the song. Per
      WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 19:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 31 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. The primary rational for delete here was not notability but whether there was sufficient content to warrant a standalone article (though there was consensus that notability was met, in any case)

    There seems a rough consensus either that Sig Cov is met, or more commonly, that there is sufficient content between the sources to justify the standalone article - in a sense, Sig Cov per article didn't have to be satisfied, only the combined level.

    (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Hi Bich

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

    This single by Bhad Bhabie from the mixtape 15 (mixtape) peaked at #68 on the Billboard Hot 100 and certified gold but despite that does not have any non-trivial coverage. (The mixtape did get reviews, including in The New York Times.) The single Hi Bich doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should be redirected and merged with the mixtape 15 (mixtape). Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per charting on multiple country’s all-format song charts, including the
      WP:GNG. (And this is from someone who absolutely hates this song too.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      "Ludicrous"? Doesn't
      WP:NSONG explicitly say that just because a song charted or is certified doesn't mean it's automatically notable? 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) and Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    You are far beyond the "risk of repetition" and have used almost the same prose multiple times in three different AfDs. See
    WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Source assessment table:
    Source
    Independent?
    		 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
    GNG
    ?
    XXL (Jan) Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 ~ 8 paragraphs, all of them about how the remix of the song includes a "serious diss to Iggy Azalea" and the guests on the remix also diss other people ~ Partial
    XXL (Feb) Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 5 paragraphs total: 2 about the artist's legal troubles; 1 about the remix dissing Iggy Azalea; only 3 actual sentences about the song itself ✘ No
    XXL (Mar) Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 4 sentences about the song; 5 paragraphs total ✘ No
    The Fader (Oct) Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 2 sentences about the song; 5 sentences total ✘ No
    The Fader (Dec) No Interview with artist Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 6 questions with paragraph-length answers, but only 2 questions about the song ✘ No
    The Wrap Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 3 sentences about the song; 6 sentences total ✘ No
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 31 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 redirect. I'm sure this will be unpopular, but after reading the whole AfD, and examining

    WP:GNG
    , without demonstrating how these criteria are met by providing sources.

    Discussants are given a fair amount of latitude to make judgement calls about specific sources; whether they are reliable, whether they are independent, whether they are significant coverage, etc. But, first there need to be sources to evaluate. Statements that sources must exist, without giving specific examples, don't carry any weight.

    The bottom line is that sources are what's important.

    WP:GNG
    , therefore we have no policy-based basis on which to keep this article.

    I noted that one of the keep arguments is from a blocked sock, and another is from a user with an extremely limited editing history. On the other hand, there are several keeps from users with extensive history. Overall, I didn't see socking as a significant issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Per the discussion on my talk page, I'm re-closing this as redirect to
    WP:ATD and the arguments on my talk page. I'm going to restore the page and redirect it. The history will still be there, so if somebody wants to go back and recover material to merge, they can do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Gucci Flip Flops

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

    This single by Bhad Bhabie from the mixtape 15 (mixtape) peaked at #79 on the Billboard Hot 100 but does not have any non-trivial coverage. (The mixtape did get reviews, including in The New York Times.) The single Gucci Flip Flops doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should be redirected and merged with the mixtape 15 (mixtape). Leviv ich 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the adjective "inherently" to spice up my prose and did not say that "inherent notability" is any sort of policy. The true reasons for my vote were stated once and that is sufficient. Saying something once is a virtue that you might want to think about. See
    WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Please stop wasting both of our time with badgering me with responses like this. I understand the GNG and NSONGS, and even if I didn’t, you rehashing the same comment ten times wouldn’t help anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Source assessment table:
    Source
    Independent?
    		 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
    GNG
    ?
    Billboard 1 No Interview with artist, no independent analysis or commentary Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 5 paragraphs containing four soundbite-length quotes ✘ No
    Billboard 2 Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No Only brief mentions of the song stating it was released; remaining 4 paragraphs are about the artist ✘ No
    Billboard 3 Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 3 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 1 paragraph describing the music video ✘ No
    Complex 1 Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 4 paragraphs, all about the artist and other artists appearing on remix of song; song itself is merely identified, not discussed ✘ No
    Complex 2 ~ An article in own voice reporting on an interview with the artist Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 3 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 1 paragraph describing the music video ✘ No
    XXL 1 Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 4 sentences: 2 are about the song going gold, 1 about it being on XXL's list of best videos 2018 ✘ No
    XXL 2 Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 6 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 2 about David Spade, 2 describing the music video ✘ No
    The Wrap Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No Literally mentions the song in one sentence; the rest of the article is about David Spade, Lil Yachty, and the artist ✘ No
    Rap-Up Yes Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication Yes
    WP:A/S
    		 No 5 paragraphs: 1 about David Spade, 2 describing the music video, the rest about the artist ✘ No
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    • Comment – here is a source assessment table for Gucci Flip Flops. Arguments about charting and certification aside, we do not have any material from which to write anything beyond a stub-length article. All we can say about this song is that it charted/certified, and who was in the music video. That's it–there's nothing else out there. The artist is widely covered, but the song is not. This song came out almost a year ago (May 1, 2018); it's unlikely there will be more coverage in the future of the song. Per
      WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 18:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep - notable due to charting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gristleking (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most Keep stances arent arguing that alone. The argument is that appearing on multiple national all-format charts, coupled with selling over half million copies, meanings there’s a strong likelihood of the sources existing. No one is advocating that sources aren’t necessary. You’re free to your opinion, but inaccurate oversimplifications like this aren’t helpful. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand "strong likelihood of the sources existing" being a reason to keep. It's an American song that came out in 2018. If there was significant coverage, we would easily find it. Why speculate on what's likely, instead of evaluating what actually is (the table above)? Leviv ich 19:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you, your relentless badgering across these 3 AFDs has made it abundantly clear that you’re unable to understand beyond your own personal stance on this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 31 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Chronic Stress (journal)

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

    Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

    WP:NOTINHERITED. 2/ I agree that the editors are well known researchers and that SAGE is a reputed publisher. However, neither guarantees that the journal will succeed. On my user page I have a list of journals started by reputable publishers that fizzled without leaving much trace
    . Note also that SAGE may be a reputed publisher, but they are strong mostly in social sciences and humanities, much less in life sciences.

    In short, my

    WP:TOOSOON. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 31 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Igal Dahan

    AfDs for this article:
    Igal Dahan (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)

    Hello. This article was deleted following a first AfD less than one year ago, and then there was a G4 deletion, but I think this new version is fairly different. However, sources are still Dahan's comments about the royal wedding - for some perspective, take a look at this "how to get featured in top publications" guide. There is also an interview on IdeaMensch - for some perspective, take a look at this "how to be featured on IdeaMensch" guide. Then there is the usual "Forbes contributor" article and a press release. To conclude: clear GNG fail, should be deleted and salted. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 09:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete the sources are either not independent or are just quoting him, without going into detail about him --Danski454 (talk) 15:04, 31 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. Rather than relisting this a third time, I believe it's best close this as no consensus. In essence this is a contested

    (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Marsden Building Society

    Marsden Building Society (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 organization that fails

    WP:GNG. A proposed deletion was removed by a conflict of interest editor. Aspects (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there’s plenty of refs as you might expect from an institution that’s 150 years old, but nothing with much depth. Lenders tend to make the national headlines if there’s a financial scandal and rarely otherwise. What kind of refs would we expect e.g. for a US bank with branches only in Iowa and Nebraska, or a German bank with branches only in Bavaria? They’re also unlikely to make national news with in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appear to be articles about all the independent building societies, which, collectively, were very significant, though less so now. It doesnt seem sensible to delete just this one article and leave all the others. There is certainly significant reporting of the Society, but not recently, so it wont appear on Google. But the test is not whether it appears on the internet. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google Print and Hathitrust have digitized a huge number of works from before 1924. If it doesn't appear in them, I'd question significant reporting of the society before 1924.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 31 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. Mainly on SIGCOV grounds. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Gray's Power Company

    AfDs for this article:
    Richard Gray's Power Company (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)

    Survived AfD in 2014 but does not appear notable and the company does not seem to have any significance Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete per
      WP:A7, as the neither the page nor the linked pieces make any credible claims of significance. Previous AfD was no quorum and 5 years ago so I don't think this would count admin-shopping. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Struck while reconsidering sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Relisting to get more comments on the recent !votes
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think It's worthwhile to note in any case that the company is actually named Audio Line Source, and the current title is the name of its product series. Reading the reviews posted, I'm not entirely convinced of their reliability or independence. The hometheaterreview.com link seems to be just a directory listing, and the other sources, while much longer, don't really offer much in the way of substantial encyclopedic information. Overall, while I'm not happy with the sources, it might be worth it to get
      WP:RSN to take a look first.
      From the information given, I'm not certain what exactly it is they manufacture, but I don't think they manufacture headphones or loudspeakers. Power conditioners seem to be the only thing that's been noted in sources, but there is no list to merge to. I have not found a merge target. Basically, I definitely don't think a keep is appropriate, but nor am I going to suggest delete. Neutral. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. See
      PRODUCT REVIEWS. Those sites routinely review products. They have to be truly independent before things start to count for notability. If companies are sending products unsolicited, giving products, or even paying them for an evaluation, that's a payment for shelf space on their review site which fails the independent criteria. The company itself doesn't glean of notability and their products don't seem to shine with notability either. Being among a whole bunch of things that they review is definitely not an indication of notability Graywalls (talk) 10:24, 31 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. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Anna Clendening

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

    Fails

    WP:MUSICBIO ToT89 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep — I've struggled with my decision while performing
      WP:BEFORE of this subject. Nearly everything that I read about this person positions my mind in the middle of the road. After two hours of research, I can't make a strong case to delete. I also can't make a strong case to keep. The subject has recently released her first EP, she's worked with two major labels (East West Records/Warner & Asylum). One of the music videos has 40 million views. She's embarking on her first tour, in some benchmark venues (capacity > 250). I know that these aren't the yardsticks that we favor here at Wikipedia, but in the music industry, these are some of the barometers that are watched. Considering that notability isn't always black & white, and that this subject is trending upwards, I've arrived at a KEEP. — Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Keep I'm pretty much aligned with Scottyoak2's thinking; this subject hovers in the middle between keep and delete, but I lean keep in favor of interpreting the sum total of sources/indicators for real world notability that might fall outside a strict interpretation of wiki criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably delete. I'm searching, but the sources are marginal. I s there ANY
      WP:SIGCOV of her?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:38, 31 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) 13:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Aji's

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

    Non notable company, no in depth coverage and appears to be

    WP:TOOSOON Praxidicae (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Reliable sources are scanty, the first reference from Nepali Times may have seemed reliable but it seems it was placed as an Ad + promotional content on the site, while the rest are self published references.
      WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    WP:SIGCOV
    .
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 31 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) 13:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alone in the Neon Jungle

    Alone in the Neon Jungle (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)

    Decline PROD, ping

    WP:FILM with one editor said the film never actually been released for a speculation and also undersourced as well. Sheldybett (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, obviously, since I was the PROD nominator. (PROD rationale was "Doesn't appear to meet
      WP:NFILM. No in-depth reviews found on search (regular Google search + Newspapers.com). As a made-for-TV-movie, it was never widely released, and it doesn't meet any other NFILM qualifications.") Sheldybett, I have to admit I'm having trouble with your reasoning for declining the PROD in the first place. Neither your your edit summary for the PROD removal nor your nomination here give any indication that you dispute or disagree with my PROD rationale, so I can't understand why you would go to the trouble of taking this to AfD when you don't seem to actually want the article kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    @
    talk) 10:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The entire content of Hanauer's review of Neon Jungle is one sentence at the very bottom of that article. There is no universe in which a single sentence qualifies as a full-length review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's the last four paragraphs. I do recognise, though, that this may not be seen as a full-length review. Alarichall (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pardon me, the entire portion which represents any critical appraisal of the film. The rest is regurgitation of plot and production information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Do you not consider The Washington Post, United Press International, or Chicago Tribune "valid sources"?
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Bajgain

    AfDs for this article:
    Bajgain (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)

    Survived AfD by no consensus after a Sept 2018 AfD, despite a ludicrous single weak keep vote substantiated by nothing. This is unsourced surname cruft. There is no indication the name is notable. The article is not suitable for use as a disambig as there is currently only one article containing the name in the title. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    soft deletion
    as an AfD survivor.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. No sources in the article and doesn't seem to be any that I can find. It's been months since the last AfD and in that time nobody has actually been able to find a source it seems. Meszzy2 (talk) 21:53, 31 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    CLNZ/NZSA Research Grants

    CLNZ/NZSA Research Grants (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 grant program that fails WP:GNG. The provided sources are either in non-independent sources, non-reliable sources, or mention a winner of the award without significant discussion of the award itself. Citrivescence (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:42, 31 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Felicity Andersen

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

    Article that has been around for a long time (since 2004!) for a actress which sounds more notable on it's one line then she really is, out of her roles, most of them are uncredited (her most known film is a uncredited role which is mentioned in it's one line summary), none of her credited roles stand out either. Wgolf (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trail of Passion is, if I read IMDb aright, a straight-to-video production that won Best Gratuitous Use of Sex at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival, according to IMDb, so not exactly a strong endorsement. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Hermanitas Velázquez

    Hermanitas Velázquez (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)

    Actresses who are singers who I am trying to find anything for. All I can really find are wiki mirrors and that is it. So either delete or possibly a redirect to the film they were in. Wgolf (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:20, 31 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. After a relist, it's clear that there's no consensus to delete as the article is clearly notable w/

    (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Dwayne Cameron

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

    Doesn't seem to be a notable actor. Doesn't pass

    ping me) 15:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the
    ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 31 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 Chaplain–Medic massacre. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Herman G. Felhoelter

    Herman G. Felhoelter (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)

    Deprodded with a rationale that admitted this subject did not meet

    WP:BIO1E would apply. Onel5969 TT me 19:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect per E.M.Gregory. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep--having an individual article is helpful for wikilinking. Bios have small details that cannot be easily captured in group articles, such as birth dates, birthplaces, etc. that are helpful for contextualization. He wasn't notable for anything afterwards because he died. He is mentioned in Battle_of_Taejon along with George D. Libby. The notability of these two men is almost identical from a quick glance. Are you really going to go through all of the deceased war-heroes and delete all the ones notable for just one event who weren't decorated enough? Or are you going to go through the list of chaplains on Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_for_the_Military_Services,_USA and delete nearly all of them?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and redirect - though I note that there is little in the bio that is not already there. He "could" be sufficiently notable but this would depend on sources. Reviewing the sources, as a whole, they either lack independance or quality (see Russell, Christopher - which is a blog). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge Tend to agree with all the above., not independently notable. George D. Libby is notable as he meets our notability criteria by virtue of getting his nations highest award for bravery.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
    talk page or in a deletion review
    ). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephanie Pond-Smith

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

    Actress with just 3 roles. Which were all uncredited. According to the IMDB she worked on other films-but I am not sure if it is the same person (It's possible though that she did return to Hollywood doing that). Still not notable enough to appear here I think. Wgolf (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 31 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Cash and Maverick

    Cash and Maverick (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)

    Okay I did put a blp prod on this originally. Now I'm not sure if this is a case of too soon or not. It does mention that here song did go to number 21 on one chart, but it is unsourced. (I guess it isn't quite a speedy though) Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 31 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.

    April Fools' Day Nominations

    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 present.

    (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Future

    Should be deleted per

    WP:TOOSOON. InvalidOStalk 19:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Oh yeah, we can also delete
    WP:TOOSOON while we're at it. InvalidOStalk 19:05, 31 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_March_31&oldid=1142224759"