Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 8

Historical climatology

(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

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comment well the topic is certainly notable and there are abundant scholarly references for it. Whether it’s best for someone (else) to work on this article or for this to be deleted so we can wait for a new article in due course, I don’t know. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). 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

(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

WP:NAUTHOR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

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]

Delete I can't source it, despite a brief review in Publisher's Weekly [2]. If anyone can, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough reliable source coverage to meet
WP:NAUTHOR. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Lacks proper sourcing. Fails
WP:NAUTHOR. Lapablo (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

Stephanie Skabo

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

GNG fail.

talk) 22:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete. I tried but didn't find any in-depth reliably-published stories on her, inclusion in permanent collections of notable museums, etc., that would allow her to pass
WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I agree, I also looked and couldn't find anything authoritative in Norwegian, as she supposedly was in gallery in Oslo. Markvs88 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also couldn't find sufficient WP:RS to satisfy
WP:Artist. Most of the shows are at Galleri A in Oslo, which is not sufficient. --Theredproject (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, a large proportion is a direct copy from Skabo's website. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem like we are headed for delete, so that problem will likely be taken care of shortly...!

talk) 16:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete My searches failed to find adequate sources, despite unique name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 10:21, 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). 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

(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

WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

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,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Doesn't meet
WP:NACTOR at this time; appears to only have one significant role so far. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Currently has minimal coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Gough Engineering

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

Spam which fails

WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

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,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

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]

Delete. I’ve looked for reliable independent sources and not found them. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy delete, entirely unsourced and promotional. SWL36 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything beyond press releases and directory entries - nothing that would satisfy
CORPDEPTH. Looking at the article's history, a lot of copyvio was removed, and it's been maintained by an editor blocked for socking and undisclosed paid editing - looks like spam. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per Independent sources
WP:ADPROMO AmericanAgent (talk) 10:55, 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). 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

)

(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]

Merge to Kazka. She doesn't seem notable enough outside the band, but this could usefully be merged there. --Michig (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kazka. I agree with Michig above. --Bsherr (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kazka. Some coverage exists, such as this, but overall available coverage may not be sufficient to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Um-Shmum

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

Nonnotable Israeli political pun. Tagged since October 2018

talk) 21:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable, indicative of a widespread attitude. Suggestion to delete as non-notable shows lack of knowledge about Israel and Israeli culture.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-known phrase in Israel. Tzahy (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable phrase. Coined by Ben-Gurion in 1955. The UN itself has related to this - Kofi Annan himself in 1998 claimed that "Um is not Shmum". In wide use in popular culture. Beyond copious sourcing in Hebrew, there is quite a bit in English on this phrase - e.g. - [3][4][5], Avnery, Uri. "UM-Shmum, UM-Boom." Counterpoise 13.3/4 (2009): 16., Cohen, Amichai, and Stuart A. Cohen. "Israel and International Humanitarian Law: Between the Neo-Realism of State Security and the ‘‘Soft Power'’of Legal Acceptability." israel studies 16.2 (2011): 1-23., Adler, Emanuel. "Israel’s unsettled relations with the world: Causes and consequences." Israel in the World. Routledge, 2012. 11-33.. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources seem the same as this NYT piece: a particularly poignant anecdote that is frequently used to add color to a very real discussion. Those books aren't covering the phrase, they are noting its existence and usage. If it were a biography, it'd be a "passing mention." ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Icewhiz. Also, is the WP:OR tag really justified in this article? Seems a pretty simple article on a phrase for which there are solid RS on its WP:GNG notability? Perhaps this OR tag could be fixed using the refs quoted above? Britishfinance (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article since it is the most known quote of
David Ben Gurion. --Midrashah (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This could be adequately covered by one sentence in an article on the relation of Israel to the UN. Zero^talk 11:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A.Jacobin (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zero. This could be covered at Israel and the United Nations in a couple of sentences. Having a standalone article is ridiculous. Number 5 7 18:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability seems fairly clear from the in-article sources (and only the original Nom takes that deletion argument). While it could be merged, I don't believe it is in violation of REDUNDANTFORK, so a Keep is a logical route, followed by a merge discussion (as the merge is not necessary). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Zero and N57. This "article" is six sentences, and even that is too many. This is a perfect candidate for the content to be merged into Israel and the United Nations with a simple redirect left behind. It's clearly been used but I don't see this as meeting GNG — it has been frequently noted but that doesn't make it notable in its own right. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Brad Douglass

(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]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A
WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

Vigo Industries

(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]

Delete: not encyclopedically notable per
WP:NCORP. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - it's been deleted twice before and was obviously created for promotional purposes. I believe the same person is at work here. Deb (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete
WP:MILL Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete can't find anything beyond passing mentions in press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appearance in a Technavio analyst's industry sector report verifies this as a company going about its business, but neither that nor appearance in an Inc Fastest-Growing list, nor anything found in searches indicates that this meets the
WP:NCORP requirement. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

Outline of Akrotiri and Dhekelia

)

(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]

Delete It's just a series of links to the main article. A bit like creating
Outline of Akrotiri and Dhekelia with the table of contents of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - which better directs readers to useful content? --Pontificalibus 14:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect (to
WP:REDUNDANTFORK is probably the correct blue text to use. Redirect in case there is any content there, and it might one day become a reasonable fork, and certainly does no harm. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

(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]

Withdraw as nom. AGF additional sources discovered by AB address my concerns. Chetsford (talk) 21:17, 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Airdash

(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]

Delete As per nomination; article has a promotional feel to it.TH1980 (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article clearly fails notability criteria based on
WP:BAND. AmericanAgent (talk) 10:32, 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). 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

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

Non-fully professional team which does not meet

WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

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 (talk • contribs) — Cnewquist1228 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment -
WP:NFOOTY is the notability standard for players, not teams, so the nomination is inherently flawed. There is no requirement for a team to be fully professional to have an article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment -
WP:ORGDEPTH. My apologies.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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]

Comment - As the user who is responsible for the first major change the this article that set off this course, I am more than willing to make any necessary changes/edits that may be required to keep this article up. With that said I am new to the Wikipedia editing game, and therefore do not know most of the lingo. If u/ChrisTheDude or u/onel5969 can tell me exactly what needs to be done for that, I would be glad to make any necessary changes that are required for the maintaining of this page. Bholda
Comment a few things on this. First, I think OP is referring to the guideline
WP:COI conflict here with User:Cnewquist1228. Jay eyem (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I don't think this does pass
WP:GNG line in the absence of any other coverage, I also think the routine coverage needs to be consistent and not just a one-off send a reporter to the final game of the season. I also can't find any other articles on the team. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - probably just scrapes by on GNG. Giant Snowman 11:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge https://www.dailyherald.com/sports/20180704/how-suburban-semipro-soccer-clubs-are-helping-to-grow-the-game There is this article in a broader audience paper however the depth is limited as one of the few examples of teams among handful of teams of suburban semi pros. I can support merge and redirect into a semi pro football related article or existing page relating to DeKalb County, IL but I don't think this should have a standalone article It lacks the notability to be of interest to the entire English language readers. US IRS 501c statuses has nothing to do with notability. Graywalls (talk) 08:17, 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Super Donuts

(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 (talk • contribs) 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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]

Delete as noted above the sources fail NCORP on depth and independence grounds. And no, that was not an intended coffee shop pun. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: A
WP:NCORP and searches are finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

Imad Salamey

(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]

None of that remotely resembles a valid reason for deletion.
Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

And both the French and especially Arabic WPs are far smaller than the English WP. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sources at all in article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Salamey has a decent citation score at Google scholar. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's not even a competent
WP:COI. If he's notable, someone will write a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per keepers - two books published by Routledge suggests a respected specialist academic. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews linked above, to which we can add this one.
Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep tag it and give someone a chance to use those reviews. I would probably do it myself if I had full access to them.White Siddiqah (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 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

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 16 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]

Keep per book reviews brought during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Megumi Sasaki

(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]

Comment - Bit fast don't you reckon? The article only got made an hour ago, by a new editor, google shows there are Japanese language sources about her, plus English youtube interviews... Spacepine (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a nomination that, frankly, raises
talk) 16:32, 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]

Keep per
Bakazaka. Dekimasuよ! 17:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as per the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion, passes
WP:Creative and deserves to be kept in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Speedy~~ Keep - Article is now sourced. Spacepine (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep good sources and clear notability. --Theredproject (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This article does not in fact currently contain any reliably sourced biographical information about the subject herself (as opposed to two of her films), since the Gendai piece is an interview, and therefore a primary source, and therefore only useful for notability purposes if we start down the slippery slope of speculating on whether her being notable enough to have been interviewed by this or that specific source. But it does indeed appear to be the opinion of the community that we can have biographical articles on artists whose works have been profiled in a large number of reliable sources, at least as long as they are white men, so we might as well allow this one on a Japanese woman. I do think some of the topic-specific notability criteria, including
WP:NOTINHERITED, but apparently very few others do, so why bother fighting it? That being said, the above two "speedy keep" !votes should be reprimanded for the either (a) making a strawman argument that anyone was claiming the article should be deleted because it didn't happen to cite sources at one time, or (b) saying that notability is "clear" despite the fact that we cannot apparently write anything about her biography without relying on primary sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 10 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 result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Jugal Devi Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Kanpur

(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

talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete - unsourced.
Run of the mill school. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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]

Delete, Non-notable institution.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY Legion X (talk) 19:03, 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]

Delete. Failed to show notability. Unsourced. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Singular: Act II

(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]

Redirect to
WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Reply - To keep the article history, I have no issue with a merge as a valid search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:35, 9 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]

Delete - Does not currently pass
WP:NALBUM: no prejudice against recreation as and when. Eagleash (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Userfy or move to Draft:, with a friendly advisory note to its creator as to how to continue working on it until notability is shown. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is almost zero information about the album. Perhaps once more details on the album are released, an article can be created, but for the time being, it fails
WP:TOOSOON. Gemsweater1 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Sabrina Carpenter discography until such a time as more concrete info becomes available. Literally 8 of the 10 references are to social media (Twitter and Instagram), YouTube videos, and e-commerce sites. The two news sources are talking about Singular: Act I and the tour respectively. I don't think the coverage is there yet. Ss112 10:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Eric Walberg

(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]

Keep (page creator)- A quick search shows that his works have got reviews in academic peer-reviewed journals such as this one and this one. One review of his works is published by the Arabic Aljazeera. His 'Postmodern imperialism : geopolitics and the great games' is found in 196 libraries around the world with the 'The Canada-Israel Nexus' being in 50 libraries around the world. His article on 'Great Game' is used and cited in "The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism". I've updated the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:54, 11 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]

Note that for fringe theories and promulgators thereof we have a higher sourcing and notability bar per
WP:FRIND. Icewhiz (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

OMG! Such scholarly peer-reviewed works are not reliable...? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 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 result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the discussion of sources above. Almost nothing about the person published in 3rd party RS. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Also agree with other contributors above on the aspect of fringe theories. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Db technology

(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

talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 00:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

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]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 04:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: The text of this
WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 5 March 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]

Delete Cannot find anything beyond press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There don't appear to be any 3rd party sources and the article even lacks a claim to notability, the only sources it includes only indicate that the company exists SWL36 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete echoing SWL36 Graywalls (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dj sadcat

(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

WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I basically agree in full with above.
Melmann (talk) 14:09, 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]

Speedy delete' as blatantly promotional article that would require a fundamental rewrite to comply with
WP:NPOV. Pichpich (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete under
WP:G11. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Speedy Delete as an obvious attempt at promotion. Can find no sources in which his works have been noticed by the media, and he is only present at the usual retail/streaming sites. (In the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be moved to a title with proper capitalization.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 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 talk page or in a deletion review
). 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)

)

(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]

Keep Jack Post isnt just on the Christian O'Connell breakfast show, He used to work as the panel operator on the Hamish and andy show, and still works on their podcast. He was basically their on air sidekick as well, and was on their show for years. The thing is that there isn't really any evidence to prove that apart from listening to the Hamish and Andy show, But he was. the irony is that a Band that was formed on that Radio show, between Hamish, Andy and Jack, has a wikipedia article, with seemingly no issues. People would only know who that band is, unless they listen to the show, in which, if they listen to the show, they would Definitely know who Jack is. I Dont see why these Discussions need to be made, as Jack is notable enough in Melbourne and Australia, to deserve a Wikipedia article. plus he has 42k instagram followers, I believe that shows that he is notable in Melbourne Radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBarker123444431 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some "media personality" reporting but it is all very routine as far as I can see. Subject does not seem to have done anything notable / creative yet. The one, minor award is not enough to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable as an on air presenter for multiple radio shows and TV series. Most notably with well known Australian comedy duo Hamish and Andy, who have their own article. He was the on air producer for their radio show as well as being the third host of four seasons of "Hamish and Andy's Gap Year", a Logie award winning tv series. He has recently been on the Christian O'Connell show, which I agree is less notable, but his time with Hamish and Andy, should more then qualify him for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.156.134.11 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe Jack Post is notable enough to be eligible for an article entry. The way I came across the disambiguation entry for
Jack Post (radio presenter). I saw the initial article once it was created by another user and I spent a good time rewriting and properly referencing the article with quality independent sources. The Hamish & Andy Show is arguably the most successful radio show ever created, networks around the world have used it as a case study and tried to emulate it. Outside of the two main hosts, Jack Post was the third host and show producer as well as being heavily involved in most other things under the Hamish & Andy brand name. Now that he is creating a lot of content outside of Hamish & Andy such as The Christian O'Connell Show and his image in Australian media is building, it makes sense that the subject should have his own article. I believe it is within the encyclopaedic scope to include Jack Post in Wikipedia when considering the Australian audience. Fingman (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Jack Post is a notable person in Australian entertainment. His contribution and involvement to the Hamish & Andy show alone is enough to warrant him a Wikipedia article. Hamish & Andy have said so themselves in interviews how integral Jack is to their show and its success. His work on the Christian O'Connell Breakfast Show is another good example of that. He is heavily involved on that show on air. In Melbourne he is very well known. He has a blue tick on instagram too. BungalowUnit (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI "keep" !voters above. Please note that notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED, so unless the subject had some specific and reliably referenced contribution to the H&A Show's success that stands up in its own right then it does not count. If the subject's claim to fame is mainly derived from the H&A Show then the best course of action would be to have a paragraph or two, or even a short section, in that article for the subject, for example about being the third host and producer, with a redirect to that section. Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 23 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,

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply