Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 8

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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The result was Withdrawn by nom.

]

Historical climatology (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)

Nearly the whole thing was created by a single ed in 2007 with just a single RS. It has been tagged for more RSs since 2015. The majority of the text repeats content at

]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hicks Thompson (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)

Virtually no coverage in reliable, independent sources–all I was able to find was some local news coverage in The Yazoo Herald [1]. The article asserts that the subject has won several awards, but after looking each of them up online, it looks like they are insufficiently notable to meet

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Skabo (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)

GNG fail.

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
It would seem like we are headed for delete, so that problem will likely be taken care of shortly...! ]
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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Singh Chauhan (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'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gough Engineering (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)

Spam which fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Kazka. King of 05:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandra Zaritska

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

Member of a relevant music group who does not seem to be notable on her own, as the only remotely relevant thing she did was a participation in The Voice of Ukraine, where she didn't make it far. Fails GNG and NMUSIC. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Merging is possible but there appears to be stronger support for a separate article. King of 05:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um-Shmum (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)

Nonnotable Israeli political pun. Tagged since October 2018

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:24, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of 05:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Douglass (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)

In 2009 this article came to AfD together with another (that was deleted) and there’s a complex history I can’t follow of bio articles and company articles being deleted and recreated. Anyway I can’t see from this article why the subject is significant and the sources provided look very doubtful in terms of supporting notability. I looked for other sources but didn’t find much that was better. Mccapra (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 8 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (utc) 02:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence this is a notable company and to be quite honest, given their subject area, I'm not sure how such a company could become notable but I see no evidence they've received the necessary coverage anywhere that would make this suitable for an encyclopedia article. Praxidicae (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:49, 8 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Akrotiri and Dhekelia. King of 05:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Outline of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (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)

Basically every link on here is a redirect to the main page on Akrotiri and Dhekelia, or to X of Cyprus (e.g. Climate of Cyprus). Thus, it provides no useful information that isn't covered by Outline of Cyprus or the main article on this topic. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we don't need an outline of every geographical entity. Links to Europe etc are useless to someone trying to understand this topic. I think the outline confuses the reader instead of informing them, leave this unusual "colony left over" entity to the main article. Legacypac (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it provides a geographical outline of a current overseas territory and as such serves its purpose as a useful navigation tool. SportingFlyer T·C 02:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is limited coverage on Wiki with regards to the Sovereign Bases and Cyprus as a whole, which is strange as it is an Anglophone nation. As per
    WP:PRESERVE, I think this article should be retained but heavily restructured. It can be easily argued that the SBA is effectivly a self-governing country, in that whilst the Privy Council and the UK Parliament have precedent, its own administration can set laws and acts as a legislature, along with the fact that whilst claimed as Cypriot territory, the Republic of Cyprus recognises their existence and there are numerous joint agreements set in place. As a result of this, the territory falls well within the bounds of a firm keep as far as outlines of territories and countries are concerned. UaMaol (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You argument would seem to be directed at Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which is fine, of course that should be kept. However I'm not sure why you think this list of wikilinks found in that article should have a seperate article - isn't it confusing? --Pontificalibus 14:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete !votes present. North America1000 21:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Candy Media (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 is sourced almost entirely to the Austin Business Journal, part of the Business Journals group. There's also a dead link to something called austinphoenix.com. A basic BEFORE in newspapers.com, Google News, JSTOR, and Google Books fails to find additional sources. I'm not 100% certain this meets the standards of

WP:GNG. (At the same time, I want to be sensitive that we're sometimes too hard on advertising and PR agencies and hold them to higher standards than other companies, so I'm open to being convinced this does meet the GNG if I'm perceiving this too harshly.) Chetsford (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Chetsford, Thanks for starting this discussion, and for acknowledging we are sometimes too hard on certain types of companies. So we're taking updated sourcing into consideration, I should note I've shared some additional links for consideration at Talk:Rock Candy Media. Turns out the company is opening additional offices in California, and was named one of the 50 fastest-growing Austin-based companies, as of 2017. I'm not sure either of these are enough to help demonstrate notability, but wanted to share just in case. Between coverage of RCM, Rock Candy Life, and Annie Liao Jones, I assumed a single entry was appropriate, though I admit I wish there were more coverage in national publications. I found a book and Digiday source to add. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also note, there are several helpful paywalled sources in LexisNexis, which I'm trying to list on the talk page and incorporate as possible. Again, I hope editors will consider all available sourcing before making a notability decision. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer, article creator): I acknowledge this article currently has a lot of Austin Business Journal sources. However, I've posted some additional sources on the article's talk page for additional consideration. I found a book source, this in-depth article by Digiday, and others (some ABJ and some not). The company is among Austin's fastest growing companies and has opened an additional office in Los Angeles. I believe this article needs work and expansion, but there is sourcing for editors to consider, and given its current trajectory, likely more on the way. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer - thanks very much for your very thorough reply; I'm sorry I didn't realize you were singularly involved in creating this before I AfD'ed it or I would have addressed my questions on your Talk page instead of taking it to AfD. I've been drawn away for the next two days but will come back and give it a more detailed read in order to withdraw the AfD nomination as I'm sure the additional sources you've supplied are redemptive. Chetsford (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources in article. Inability to find sources that satisfy both reliable and independent, especially to the tune of meeting

WP:NBAND. Previous 2013 discussion was NC as no-one else contributed Nosebagbear (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:54, 8 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeKalb County United (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-fully professional team which does not meet

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeKalb County United should not be deleted from Wikipedia as we are government sanctioned 501(c)4 non-profit. We compete in a USSF sanctioned league. We have regional tv news coverage, newspaper coverage, local magazines, and additionally, several other teams at our level exist on Wikipedia that do fully meet the requirements outlined by Wikipedia. We are able to fully show our validation with reliable sources, provide replays of matches, highlights, stats, attendance records, profits and losses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_Bavarian_SC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Stockade_FC
https://www.wifr.com/content/sports/Stillman-Valley-grad-helps-build-DeKalb-County-United-481995951.html
https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/displayAll.do?dispatchMethod=displayAllInfo&Id=5043967&ein=821900787&country=US&deductibility=all&dispatchMethod=searchAll&isDescending=false&city=Sycamore&ein1=&postDateFrom=&exemptTypeCode=al&submitName=&sortColumn=orgName&totalResults=194&names=&resultsPerPage=25&indexOfFirstRow=50&postDateTo=&state=IL
https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/01/30/soccer-new-semi-professional-team-hopes-to-spark-excitement-around-dekalb-county/ap9aa1e/
https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/07/23/dekalb-county-uniteds-inaugural-season-ends-with-win/alx8kir/
https://www.daily-chronicle.com/2018/04/06/soccer-dekalb-county-united-board-overwhelmed-by-community-support/dbeyukv/
https://mycujoo.tv/search?q=dekalb%20county%20united
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnewquist1228 (talkcontribs) Cnewquist1228 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantial coverage seems to exist for this club. Bashum104 (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. North America1000 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

no evidence of notability , The references are promotional. (and the article is apparently written by undeclared paid editng group) DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references appear to be from reliable sources, including daily newspapers. While Wikipedia articles should be free of promotionalism, an article in a reliable source with a promotional tone is still reliable. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 04:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a couple local news articles noting a store opening count as satisfying GNG, then be right back, I have about a billion articles to go write. This coverage is not independent in many cases (multiple interviews with the founder and other articles that are rather clearly just press release/promo pieces). In others, it is not significant, representing just routine coverage of a business opening. ~ Rob13Talk 21:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a stub more written like a promotional blurb than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources currently in the article don't pass
    WP:CORPDEPTH; a search for more sources is hindered by the fact that there appear to be many companies/brands around the world called Super Donuts; weighing the number of Google News hits on the first couple of pages, it's not clear that this is the most notable (or least un-notable?) amongst them. There's no unpromotional content at the article worth saving; delete.GirthSummit (blether) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:25, 8 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus that the additional sources found during the course of discussion demonstrate sufficient notability per NAUTHOR.

]

Imad Salamey (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)

WP:NOTLINKEDIN: we are not a place where people are entitled to post their résumés just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article needs work, and it's definitely problematic that it seems to be being maintained by the subject. I did a search for some sources however, and it's possible that he'd be notable. He seems to have published some books with respectable publishing houses, which have received some attention - This and this are reviews of his books in what appears to be respectable journals, and this indicates that another one of his books is recommended as a reading on a masters course at Edinburgh University; also this is an interview in what appears to be a decent news source (I've never heard of it, but it has an editorial board etc.). GirthSummit (blether) 16:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He is Lebanese and the official languages of Lebanon are Arabic and French. Both the Arabic and French wikipedias do not have a page of this person so why does he need to exist on English Wikipedia? Besides, this article is currently a short stub and he has not made any major accomplishments to the world at large. --Ernesztina (talk) 20:55, 28 February 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) 15:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of the second review that Phil Bridger linked to above, I'm coming down on keeping this. I think that The Government and Politics of Lebanon book has received enough attention to pass criterion 3 of
WP:NAUTHOR - his work is obviously well-known in his field, and this book has been the subject of multiple periodical articles/reviews. I do think that the page needs to be tagged, and the subject needs a stiff COI warning, but he does appear to be notable. GirthSummit (blether) 15:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:26, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus for Keep through several different notability routes suggested, but primarily

]

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

No sources which looks tame, but the article is nowhere passing the

WP:NFILM due to being all minor since of her career beginning. Sheldybett (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, the !vote was more a reaction to the poor judgement of the nominator than the merits of the article in question. "Speedy" was uncalled for. Changed to keep.
Additionally, I see this as the opposite of what
WP:NOTINHERITED is design to prevent. If someone is not notable through her actions and creations, then there would be very few Wikipedia articles for creatives. Discretion is obviously required, but there appear to be enough sources to justify the articles inclusion. --Spacepine (talk) 03:00, 12 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jugal Devi Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Kanpur (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

independent, reliable sources, and I just can't find it for this. Opting for AfD to allow native speakers of Hindi to analyse such sources. SITH (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:12, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Sabrina Carpenter discography. King of 05:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sufficient references, release date nor track listing Jax 0677 (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept. It’s a confirmed album, with a lead single. When Thank U, Next was in the same position, nobody disputed its notability. – Joesimnett (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with
The Off Season (mixtape), My Criminal Record and I can go on but I think I have made my point. LOVI33 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Also for the references. I don't know what better references then ones that come from the artist herself soo. LOVI33 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments – and in any case, some of those albums, like Notes on a Conditional Form and Life Metal do have several independent sources to verify the statements in the article. Singular: Act I was put up for deletion for exactly the same reasons as this one: trying to create an article too soon, without any independent sources or verifiable facts. Of course, Act I DID become notable once it was released and charted, but it meant having to go through the whole debate about notability first, because the article was created too soon. This album almost certainly will pass notability as well in a few months, but right now, all we know is it will be released "some time in 2019". It's not even 100% confirmed that "Pushing 20" will be on the album. About the best source right now is this one [10], and it doesn't tell you very much. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Richard3120 I understand your argument and I do agree that it maybe is a little to early to create the article but if it does get deleted I would like it to be re-created when the album does have more information. Although Carpenter did comfirm that Pushing 20 will be on Singular: Act II via Instagram Live on March 8, 2019. Also if this article does get deleted I do ask that some of the ones I metioned above get put up for discussion as well. LOVI33 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:27, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Walberg (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)

Walberg is a journalist and author of books about politics in the Near East. He does not appear to have an advanced degree or regular employment. I found a review of one of his books in a minor academic journal, and reviews of 2 others in sources deprecated as FRINGE or not reliable on Reliable Sources Noticeboard: iranreview.org and foreignpolicyjournal.com (this is NOT the journal Foreign Policy,) and one review on a partisan website [11]. Sourcing is PRIMARY, and searches produce material he wrote, not articles about him. His Twitter page [12]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (note: EMG discussed the subject with me prior to nomming). Seems to mainly produce fringey oped material, published in places such as www.eurasiareview.com. Does not seem to be covered as a subject himself in reliable sources.Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1st, of the 2 reviews your mention "Islamic Resistance to Imperialism," by By Joseph J. Kaminski, International University of Sarajevo. in ReOrient: A Forum for Critical Muslim Studies reads: "Walberg’s argument is based on essentialized binaries relating to Islam and the West. On 'the good side' is everything and anything that fits within the rubric of Islam: whether it’s Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, Hasan al Banna, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), Sufism, or the Muslim Brotherhood; it does not matter. They all get defended or rationalized in one way or another throughout this work because, at least, they stand in opposition to the West, or 'the bad side.'" and concludes: " In my opinion, Walberg’s book lacks the nuance and depth necessary to properly tackle such an important subject."
  • The 2nd is the review of Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games, by Joseph Michael Gratale, is the one that I mention in my Nom as published by a "minor" scholarly journal of a book put out by a very minor publisher claritypress.com. According to the review, Walberg's book focuses on "the unipolar dominance of the USA," “new developments in financial and military-political strategies to ensure control over the world’s resources," "extensive coverage of CIA sponsored coups, interventions, and wars orchestrated by the US in order to maintain a dominant position," "the Israeli lobby have a tremendous influence in shaping US policy," and "discusses at length the role played by Jews in global finance." FRINGE territory. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might find it useful to take a close look at
WP:AUTHOR. Note that two reviews in minor journals is not enough to establish notability. His citation of FRINGE theorists, and the fact the author of one of the journal reviews found his scholarship inadequate, adds to the difficulty of establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:01, 12 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Db technology (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:NCORP. I found brief mentions and press releases (also a few general announcements), but nothing that equates to in-depth coverage on the company. CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 01:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dj sadcat (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 highly promotional article cites a single source, which only mentions the subject in passing; I have looked for better sources, but can find no independent, in-depth coverage. Subject appears to fail

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of 05:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Post (radio presenter)

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

No evidence he is notable outside of his role in

The Christian O'Connell Breakfast Show and as the redirect was contested, no choice but to afd + delete and redrect. Praxidicae (talk) 23:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as

]

Naqshbandia Mujadadia Aminia (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)

Content is duplication of Naqshbandi. Any other unique material non-notable and unreferenced. Content has little to do with article title. AhmadLX (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How strange that right after registering you came straight to this page and comment "Keep" ;) And "useful" is no useful argument here ;) As above comment points out,
reliable sources is required. AhmadLX (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

]

Tom Rogers' perfect game

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

Not notable minor league sporting event. Please note this recent AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:33, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ~ Amory (utc) 02:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Brown (Texas politician) (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 meet the thresholds of

WP:GNG. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing of "smaller towns" in
WP:NPOL doesn't apply to mayors of municipalities unless its at least a moderately-sized one (100,000+). Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
What ]
Nope, GPL93 is correct about what POLOUTCOMES meant by "smaller towns". The rule is most definitely not that as soon as a place reaches 20,000 in population, its mayors suddenly get an automatic guaranteed right to have Wikipedia articles regardless of the quality of sourcing or substance those articles actually contain: the notability criterion for local politicians is "who have received significant press coverage", which is not what this article is showing. You need to be familiar with the actual outcomes of past AFDs on similar topics if you expect to be taken seriously as an authority on Wikipedia's notability criteria — and past AFDs have very clearly not supported a population of 20,000 as an instant notability-maker for a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, you have no evidence that I'm wrong either. It doesn't state that a "smaller town" is a town of less than 20,000 in
    WP:POLOUTCOMES. I am basing the population number on what I have seen in previous AfD's. GPL93 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
]
And I'm telling you, you don't need to show a "source" for your interpretation of what "small towns" means in POLOUTCOMES — Wikipedians who've been around here for over a decade, and know much better than you about what was intended by it, are telling you what it is. And at any rate, POLOUTCOMES is simply a summary of common outcomes, not the trump card in a notability debate — the trump card for notability of mayors is
WP:NPOL #2, where the notability test is "who have received significant press coverage", but that's not what you're showing. NPOL trumps POLOUTCOMES, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Also please note that settlement hierarchy is a concept that is used for
Deep East Texas is a sub-region and that, additionally, simply being the largest or one of the largest towns in an area doesn't mean that it automatically meets "regional prominence". GPL93 (talk) 04:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of 05:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castaneda/reiman (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 duo of contemporary artists. All of the references are dead. Has non notable awards for the duo. Fails

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. J947(c), at 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect most of the coverage on their CV is event listings, and reviews of their exhibitions, such as these ones quoted from the San Francisco Chronicle [13], [14], [15]. Whether that gives you enough information to create a biographical article about them, I don't know. Richard3120 (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the research! I don't know why you would not think reviews like the ones you posted above are not RS: they are an extremely significant contributor to notability of artists. Look also at these items, which I found partially through their CV page and partially through good old search, are more in-depth:
So there you are. As much of the coverage is circa 1990, much of it will not be available online. It's easily enough for GNG.]
]
Descriptions of exhibtions, aka reviews, are the thing all artists look for and one of the main ways to establish notability. If a reviewer thinks a show is worth reviewing and writes about it, that is an independent form of validation akin to a reporter thinking a politician is notable and doing a profile piece. It's tough to get reviewed, and when it happened in good publications, it is a direct contributor to notability. It's really no different than coverage of a subject in a newspaper. Reviewing the "work" also happens in book reviews, and we certainly accept those from reliable publications. WP:ARTIST also mentions "critical attention" and "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", so reviews are definitely valid. I do agree that the subject of the writing (the artworks) can be sometimes arcane though.]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion on ThatmontrealIP's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources to meet
    ThatMontrealIP's sources, I note that the SFGATE source is by the same journalist as the three San Francisco Chronicle articles, but the others do appear to be independent of the artists and of each other. Other sources also exist - I also found Bark, with an article 'castaneda/reiman Concrete canines provide foundation for collaborative artists. by Samantha Schoech' [17], and there are probably other sources which are not online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Let's close in on those sources. First RebeccaGreen's: The link to the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive takes us to a dry exhibition listing and nothing more; yet no one disputes they exhibit. Then, there's a write up in a magazine devoted to "the serious dog enthusiast" ("the indispensable guide to life with dogs"), which probably cannot be used as a relevant and significant source. Beyond this all we haveis that there are probably other sources out there" which we can never find though since they are offline. Emphasis added.
Then
reliable source; a duly attributed picture of one painting in the Artists of Invention tome; and we get one acceptable source in the KQED series on artistic collaborations where the subject gets an episode
. And that is all, really. The rest are obscure or impossible-to-find sources, much as we are assured that they must be out there.
I truly admire the effort but, at the end of the day, this is yet another art creator trying for space and wider recognition through Wikipedia. But this is
not the purpose of this project. Personally, I look for my marginal and not-widely-known artists elsewhere. -The Gnome (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
With respect, you've cherry picked the sources and left out Flash Art, Art in America and several others. KQED, for example, is an 8-minute television program that looks in-depth at their work.]
My link to the
WP:SOURCEACCESS: "Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only in university libraries. Rare historical sources may even be available only in special museum collections and archives. Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf (see WikiProject Resource Exchange)." and per Wikipedia:Offline sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Allow me to second what ]
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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

]

Andrzej Sztando (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:NBIO in general. PS. Also a likely WP:VANITY article written by the subject or someone connected closely to him. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both
    WP:PROF. Subject has written an extensive number of publications and has won some more local awards. Allegations that the subject wrote the article are countered by the author's plan statement on talk that they are not the subject just interested in this area of study. Many academic articles are written by people that know them, but I don't see where the nominator asked the author if they have a COI. Legacypac (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]


Bronze Medal for Long Service does not contribute to notability, but his contributions to city planning and economic development are notable. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: Can you explain how his contributions are notable? He didn't receive any awards for them. The bloated sections entitled 'Application of scientific research results' is simply a list of few articles that cited him. His citation record as shown on Google Scholar is average - not bad, but does not suggest major impact (plus, again, significant impact would usually be documented by awards and/or significant coverage). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Seems to pass

]

  • Keep: In my opinion Sztando passed three
    WP:PROF
    criteria:

Criterion #1: Sztando's scientific publications have been cited 388 times in peer-reviewed scientific publications till 23rd of August 2017. Here is a list of them submitted during his successful habilitation procedure: https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=91593&_k=uvcl4t (tab scientific curriculum / achievements) Is 388 a lot? When it comes to public management, yes. In addition, Criterion #1 says: "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account" and says: "Publication and citation rates in humanities are generally lower than in sciences". Public management is a young scientific discipline with small number of scientific journals and with no comercial support/interest like traditional, old management, but is extremely important because society, economy and environment deeply depend on it. Criterion #1 says as well: "For the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: ...named lectures or named lecture series". We can see Sztando's certificates/confirmations on named lectures delivered at universities in 11 countries of 4 continents, here: https://nauka-polska.pl/#/profile/scientist?id=91593&_k=uvcl4t (tab scientific curriculum / recomendations). In Criterion #1: "There are other considerations that may be used as contributing factors (usually not sufficient individually) towards satisfying Criterion 1: ...service on editorial boards of scholarly publications". Sztando serves as a member of the Editorial Committee and the International Scientific Program Council of the journal Economic Alternatives (Bulgaria) (see: https://www.unwe.bg/eajournal/en ), as well as member of Editorial Team of Urban Studies and Public Administration (USA) (see: http://www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/uspa/about/editorialTeam ). I think that it is also important that he is an expert monitor of Research Executive Agency of European Commission which agency manages the research and innovation program Horizon 2020 - the largest one in the European Union. See: https://www.ue.wroc.pl/pracownicy/andrzej_sztando.html

Criterion #2. He received Bronze Medal for Long Service. Polish State Act of October 16, 1992 on Orders and distinctions (Journal of Laws 2019, item 25) in Article 18a. says: "The prize for exemplary, exceptionally conscientious performance of duties resulting from professional work in the service of the State is the Medal for the Long-Term Service", see: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU19920900450/U/D19920450Lj.pdf The executive ordinance to this act is the Ordinance of the President of the Republic of Poland on the detailed procedure in cases concerning the awarding of orders and badges and templates of relevant documents. This ordinance contains a template of the application for a discussed medal and in its 18th point it needs "justification of the application, with particular regard to exemplary, exceptionally diligent performance of obligations resulting from professional work, awarded prizes and distinctions", see: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20140000064/O/D20140064.pdf It is not true that the President of the Republic of Poland gives these medals for just being at work for specific amount of time (this is only a one of formal prerequisites of application. It would be illogical by the way). He gives them for "exemplary, exceptionally diligent performance of obligations resulting from professional work, awarded prizes and distinctions". In the case of Sztando, it was a scientific work, the application of its results in the practice of Polish public management and the scientific awards won.

Criterion #7. He has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. His research results are largely utilized by public managers/authorities in not only Polish practice of strategic management of local and regional development. There is a number of local and regional development strategies implemented in Poland (for voivodeships, provinces, counties, communes, cities etc.) which use those results (public management methods, tools, procedures, rules etc. developed by Sztando). Additionally he is an full author of dozens of them. We can see examples in projected Wikipedia article. It is rare that the research results in public management are so widely used in practice. And we have to remember that each strategy deals with number of long term investments and other public activities, the value of which is calculated in from hundreds of millions up to few billions of PLN (1Eur=4PLN). If it is not "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", what is?

Summarizing, in my opinion, Sztando is notabile academic measured by their academic achievements. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:COI in relation to the subject? (Basically: are you the subject, have you been paid or ordered by the subject to write this entry?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:COI in relation to the subject. I am just passionate of local and regional development (not academic, not authority member), so I am going to enrich Wikipedia with information on categories and persons connected to it, from Central European Countries especially. And I want to do it fully in line with Wikipedia rules and vision. In my opinion categories and persons connected with local and regional development' paradigm and successful practice (it happens rarely) are important to economy, society and science, especially to ones from developing countries. This is also the reason why I devote my time and energies to this discussion. Thank you Iszop63 (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NPROF exactly. If he only habilitated last year, he is certainly not notable. scope_creepTalk 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NPROF and the consensus of its authors and we want to issue judgments based on our private views. Regards Iszop63 (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Habilitation is a certification to enable a person to teach. The Habilitation article states in the lede:
is the key for access to a professorship in many European countries
This is indicative of a the person that is at the beginning of their career and is therefore non-notable. Combined with their low h-index is more evidence of non-notability. Iszop63, I have posted an entry up at coin regarding you clear conflict of interest. That should get a few more eyes on this. scope_creepTalk 09:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NPROF criteria. Thanks Iszop63 (talk) 10:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@]
I have closed the ]
@Justlettersandnumbers: out of interest, why won't you use Chrome? I have a few issues with it regarding privacy so I'm thinking of switching to Firefox. SITH (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. It's not gonna be any less of a hoax if we keep discussing it for several more days. DS (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salisbury Hare (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 is a suspected hoax. All mentions of this subject found online lead back to Wikipedia, and the references are suspect. Two are not about the article subject, and of the other four, only one is available online, and this subject is not actually mentioned there. In fact, nothing that this source used to cite is actually found in the source. Going through them one by one:

1. A Bibliography of Folklore. Folklore Society (Great Britain). 1961. (This source exists, but is not available online.)
2. Folklore: vol 15. Folklore Society (Great Britain). 1904. (Available here, no mention of this subject.)
3. Leach, Maria (1949). Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend vol.1. (This source exists, but is not available online.)
4. Johnson, Paul (7 May 1967). "Hare we go, a strange encounter". Salisbury Journal. (This source [publication] exists, but [that year] is not available online.) Edited for clarification. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Berry Judson, Katherine (2009). Myth and Legends of California and the Old Southwest. (Not available online in the original form, but the eBook published a few years later is, here. Totally irrelevant to the article subject, though.)
6. Flanagan, Barry (1983). Barry Flanagan: recent sculpture, October 28-16 November 1983. (Irrelevant.)

The article is not linked from any other Wikipedia article, and has not received any significant edits since its creation ~7.5 years ago. The creation of this article was the creator's only edit to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I would also copy the following IP comment from the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

    This article may be entirely false.
    1. The Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre have confirmed there is no mention of a hare sighting in the Imber Parish Record for 1318.
    2. The Foklore Society have confirmed that neither Wilfrid Bonser's A Bibliography of Folklore (London: Folklore Society, 1961) nor Folklore: vol 15. Folklore Society (Great Britain, 1904) contain any mention to a hare connected with Salisbury, Imber or Wiltshire.
    3. There was no edition of the Salisbury Journal published on 7th May 1967. The nearest editions (4th May and 11th May) do not contain the article referenced here. 79.78.116.255 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and fails ]
  • Delete. As stated; almost certainly wholly untrue and misleading. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Folklore topics are sometimes tough, but there's no real question that this one's a hoax. Google Scholar returns a big fat zip. A text search on the Internet Archive's digitized collection returns only false positives. Google Books gives a handful of hits, but they're mostly self-published; none of them display academic rigor, and all postdate this article's creation, so citogenesis (rather than legitimacy) is the parsimonious explanation. Creating editor was a drive-by with no other contributions, which further tends to support this argument (many of these types of hoaxes are so created, sadly almost certainly by people who know precisely what they're doing). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems very likely that this is a hoax, as the comments made above well illustrate. Even if it is not an intentional hoax and was a genuine attempt to create an article we have the issue that the references do not seem to be genuine meaning that the article is based on no sources or a bad misinterpretation of sources. Moreover there is no evidence of the topic being notable, especially given the fact it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere else. So almost certainly a hoax, but even if not would fail notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable career minor league baseball player.

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH #1 simply states that the college player is notable if they "have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport)", which Wingo has. The CBWS MVP is listed in the equivalent infobox.--TM 02:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
In that case, the guideline needs some serious reworking. ]
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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of 05:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sindiso Mazibisa (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 does not meet

inline citations
are all directory-style entries which do not confer notability, however the majority of the sources are inline external links. Here is the analysis of them:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
Count source toward
GNG
?
Yes Doesn't appear affiliated. Unfamiliar with publication. ~ Slightly, he's mentioned in the title and two lines are dedicated to him. ? Unknown
No
Self-published.
~ For biographic details, sure. For assertions of notability, no. Yes By virtue of being self-published. No
404 404 404 ? Unknown
Yes No apparent affiliation. Unfamiliar with publication. No Coverage is given to a group for which he is a spokesman, not Mazibisa himself. No
No
Self-published
.
~ For biographical details, yes, for notability assertions, no. Yes By virtue of being
self-published
.
No
Yes No apparent affiliation. Unfamiliar with publication. No About a dispute between one of his clients and Mugabe. No
Yes No apparent affiliation. Unfamiliar with publication. No About a case, mentions him once in passing. No
No Affiliated by context. 404 404 No
No Affiliated by context. 404 404 No
No Affiliated by context. 404 404 No
No Affiliated by context. 404 404 No
Yes No apparent affiliation. No Appears to be user-generated. No Completely unrelated, does not mention him once. No
No Affiliated by context. 404 404 No
Yes No apparent affiliation. Unfamiliar with publication. No Totally unrelated, does not mention him at all. No
No Affiliated by context. 404 404 No
No
Self-published
.
~ For biographical info, yes, for claims of notability, no. Yes By virtue of being self-published. No
No Affiliated by context. 404 404 No
No Affiliated by context. ~ Affiliated stuff can be okay for biographical data, not for notability. No Doesn't mention him. No
No Affiliated by context. ~ Ditto. No Doesn't mention him. No
Appears to have been replaced by a phishing site. Appears to have been replaced by a phishing site. Appears to have been replaced by a phishing site. ? Unknown
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}}.

This article is sending my

peacock phrases
such as:

  • one of the most flamboyant campaigns
  • proud producer of the 3 kings music band
  • has a distaste for imperialist or dictatorship tendencies from white, black, yellow, green or whatever man and he is a fighter for the people, and his freedoms
  • Without apology

The use of

weasel words
surrounding unverified allegations is also concerning, for example:

  • allegedly tortured
  • It is suspected that because of his outspoken nature

Quite frankly, I was considering proposing this for deletion per

G11
but I think it's a borderline CSD case. To conclude, this article is a
general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Delete: Sourcing definitely isn't up to required standards - thank you for the thorough analysis
    looking beyond GNG and have it be a trimmmed down business / political stub. --RuhriJörg 15:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
P.S.: Had forgotted to add the "weak". Also, in addition to my last comments,
"If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted" seems to be a good summary of what I felt. The question in this case seems to be the "eventually" ;) --RuhriJörg 15:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:12, 8 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Has enough sources to pass

]

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

Fails

WP:NPOL. Mayor of a community under 20,000 and most of his media coverages derives from his military service and death. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he was killed, rather than dying of natural causes or in a vehicular accident like thousands of other politicians have been, is not in and of itself a reason why his death is more special than the deaths of other mayors who died in office. It still just makes him a
ten year test for enduring significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree. The cause of his death is exactly why it received international news coverage. If he died of natural causes or in a vehicular accident, it would not have received that level of news coverage. It's a notable case among U.S. service members killed in Afghanistan. That plus him being an elected official should be reason enough. Johndavies837 (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enough to make him more than a BIO1E? No. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brent Taylor was the first elected mayor in the State Of Utah to use an obscure law allowing an elected official to serve in active duty and temporarily resign his/her office during that deployment. He was also the first Elected Mayor to be killed in action during his elected term. Both historically significant in the history of the State of Utah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.0.95 (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is this [20] January 2018 article from the Deseret News on Taylor's deployment. However I do not think that would be enough to make an article on him if he were still alive, and I don't really see it as adding to enough coverage to save the fact that this is basically news coverage of the death of a serving mayor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article, Brent and his extraordinary life are well worth saving and highlighting. His is some of the best blood spilled for our nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.99.79 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings being named after a person isn't a notability criterion in NPOL either, so that possibility isn't relevant at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL is a SNG for presumed notability. This individual clearly meets
WP:GNG per SIGCOV. Coverage of him as a mayor alone (of a 17k pop town) probably did not rise up to GNG (though it was not insignificant). The combination of the wide national coverage of his death, post-death coverage, and pre-death coverage as a mayor - rises up to GNG. He's also, quite clearly not a BIO1E (as he was covered both as a mayor and as a notable combat casulty). Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virinchi (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)

Company which does not seem to have received the necessary

independent, reliable and significant coverage
. An analysis of the sources is included below.

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable?
Significant coverage?
Count source toward
GNG
?
Yes Yes No It's a
database entry
which all publicly-traded companies have.
No
404 404 404 ? Unknown
Unfamiliar with publication. Unfamiliar with publication. No Appears to be a press release. No
Unfamiliar with publication. Unfamiliar with publication. No Appears to be a press release. No
No
Self-published
.
~ For basic information, yes, for claims of notability, no. Yes By virtue of being
self-published
.
No
Unfamiliar with publication. Unfamiliar with publication. No It's a press release. No
Unfamiliar with publication. Unfamiliar with publication. No It's a press release. 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}}.
SITH (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:11, 8 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 08:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

This appears to be an essay which has been created by synthesis.

event notability guidelines, and certainly shouldn't be used to prop up an essay about the underlying issue, which appears to not be notable enough for its own article. SITH (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:10, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to

]

List of mayors of Farmington, Missouri (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)

List article of mostly not notable politicians aka Mayors of a place of under 20,000 people. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:07, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was previously dependent on copied text that was removed as a

promote those lecture videos. He will have to ask for hits elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A search in Arabic shows him to be very noteworthy, and among a number of preachers who have had their Kuwaiti nationality withdrawn for radical religious ideas. Discussion of this in a couple of sources says that a number of people have been stripped of their nationality, ‘most notably’ Awadi. There isn’t a huge amount of coverage in mainstream Gulf media because the press is heavily controlled by the state and he’s an undesirable, but there certainly are sources from reliable mainstream publications such as Al Arab where even if you can’t read Arabic you can see the article is all about him and not just a passing mention; likewise this one in Al Hayat and this one in Al Khaleej online. Mccapra (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll save it , he's notable person , Thanks . -Imad_J (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Translate of Mccapra's finds convinces me: three independent mainstream news sources which single him out by name, not just in passing. Narky Blert (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Will add sources later, but this guy definitely has several independent and reliable sources talking about him. (Search on Google News, not Google proper-- the first few pages of Google results are not independent of the subject.) Gilded Snail (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but page needs cleanup, maybe some sort of protection. I just added 2 brief sentences to lede, sourced to some intense reporting by Andrew Gilligan at the Sunday Telegraph. Before that page had been cleansed of the terrorist/ ISIL ties that make him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nominator - The article has been improved nicely since my deletion proposal, which is a fine outcome to this process. In fact, I should have noticed the obscure news sources located by the folks above. It appears that the ultimate decision will be to keep the article, and I will not oppose that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 08:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt McIlwain (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 clear that this person meets

WP:BIO. Being 75th on a list of tech investors and 94th on a list of venture capitalists doesn't seem to be that notable. only (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply a man with some money who makes investments, doesn't pass ]
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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FocusVision (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 page is a festival of corporate peacockery, close to a full house of buzzword bingo. Even in the earliest versions of the article, before all the promotional edits, I don't see any evidence that the topic meets

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the ]
Me either. Just trying to focus our vision, so to speak. ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:16, 8 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 ). 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Legal advertising. King of 05:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The people vs. Kreuzer, Turnwald-Wacker, Müller

The people vs. Kreuzer, Turnwald-Wacker, Müller (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)

Both English and German source searches for the name of the case, its official number and the situation surrounding the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant turn up nothing other than official documents relating to the case. There is no

general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that GNG are met, just a sidenote in the history of lawyers in Germany. Also, no improvement in more than 6 years since I last looked at the page. —Kusma (t·c) 21:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 8 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 ). No further edits should be made to this page.