Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 24

The result was redirect to Kishiryu Sentai Ryusoulger. T. Canens (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The initial Google search appeared to return some fruitful results, but when inspected it turned out they were all connected to the subject, and primarily notices for individual performances where I was expecting reviews and articles that discussed the group. In short, no
WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 24 May 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.

Hayate Ichinose

)

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

Coverage for this actor consists of two list entries and one management company blurb. Insufficient notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect going by available sources, there's more information about the character that the subject plays than about the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails GNG. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I'm not convinced the above reactions are taking Japanese-language materials into account. At first glance coverage in Japanese does seem to indicate he could pass
WP:NACTOR. Dekimasuよ! 06:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hmm. As usual, source hunting is more difficult if you out every scrap through the translator... thousands of hits could be triggered by the same press release, and it would be really hard to notice from the search result report alone :/ That article doesn't strike me as more than minimal coverage either, I must admit. Would be handy to have a Japanese-savvy person do a trawl. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't make this clear, but I am Japanese-savvy. I read the article, I didn't put it through machine translation. Dekimasuよ! 04:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked is a fairly trivial interview, can you find anything better? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three-page interview here. Dekimasuよ! 04:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, all right - should have guessed from the name :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 23:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Thank you, I am entirely conversant with the fact that non-English sources are acceptable. That does not make them easier to check under circumstances such as these. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a good suggestion and I am changing my vote accordingly, but the insinuation that Elmidae is unaware of

WP:NONENG borders on insulting. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 00:21, 27 May 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. With respect to the merge request, an undeletion+redirection can be asked for at

WP:REFUND (I see that none of the delete arguments opposed such an option) providing that a redirect target is provided. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

McGee Air Services

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

This company does not appear to have received sufficient independent coverage to satisfy

WP:NCOMP. Refs 1 & 3 are press releases; ref 2 is a more substantial article but I don't think it sufficies on its own. Searches throw up a number of further PR items but nothing better. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, in hindsight not sure why I didn't nominate it myself instead of placing the notability tag. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alaska Airlines or Alaska Air Group – Ever since becoming a good article, activity on the Alaska Airlines article has been heavy on the sort of short-shelf-life, directory-like information favored by WP Aviation and short on additions focusing on the airline's history or the overall picture. If this is a subsidiary, it's entirely appropriate to mention it for a paragraph or so in the context of the parent's history. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't viewed the Alaska Air Group article in some time before casting this !vote. Looks like mention of this entity takes up half of that article's lead section while it isn't mentioned at all in the article body. This once again proves that we're not out to create lead sections in articles, but rather we're out to separate a block of text from the rest of the article for purely stylistic purposes and pawn if off as a lead section. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a not particularly notable subsidary. MilborneOne (talk) 16:55, 29 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EZone57

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

The claim for notability of this website seems to rest principally on winning one online award, the importance of which I am unable to effectively assess, but it ain't the Emmy. African media are often tricky to evaluate because of lack of international coverage, but my feeling here is that

WP:NWEB is not satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, to make matters worse the article appears to misrepresent the award: according to the provided source [3] (reliability unclear), the award was not for "Music Website of the Year" but for "Best Blogger" and was awarded to the subject's founder. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hinging on one dubious "award" (which is not even about the "website" itself) to misuse Wikipedia for promotion. – Ammarpad (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the blatant biased rationale of the nom. I've just been commenting about this and I came here and read this! Since the supposed award comes from an Africa organisation and not one from the western world like the Emmy then it is not notable? Since African newspapers are African - going by your "international coverage" comment (which you meant the western media) - then African sources are not reliable? Are you for real? This is classic systematic bias which has affected many African articles and driving away new and old African editors. I would ask admins to check the nomination history of this editor and close this Afd for the poor rationale evident above - which in my view is a direct contravention of our efforts to fighting systematic bias on English Wikipedia. I do not mind if this article is renominated with a proper rationale - and even deleted, but under no circumstance should we accept or encourage this type of thinking on the Wiki project. Absolutely terrible!Tamsier (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude... simmer down. I'm expressly stating in the nomination that I'm having trouble assessing the validity of the sources, because I am aware that most of us don't have a real understanding of what works as reliable or independent in African countries. If this sourcing had been presented for, e.g., a US-based site, I would immediately label it as non-notable; as it is, I admit I can't really tell, and am asking for input. - So please keep the outrage for situations where it is merited, okay? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really! I am quite calm. Your rationale above is evident for others to see. There was no confusion. I do not live in the US but I can mostly tell a reliable source from an unreliable one if it is in a language I can read and understand. It is irrelevant which part of the world the source originated from. That's what's called good editing. Other people's geographical location or culture should have have no bearing on the reliability of the source. Even if you cannot tell whether a source is reliable or not, we do have the reliable source noticeboard. Your inability to identify reliable African sources is not a ground for nominating or deleting an article. And who is "most of us"? I have interacted with numerous editors over the years (both on English and French Wiki) who are not of African descent but were able to identify reliable African sources and indeed created African related articles. Sorry, but I don't know who you are referring to when you wrote "most of us". By the way I'm not "Dude" to you, but let's not derail this poor nomination any longer. The issue is not about the nomination of this article. I couldn't care less if this article is nominated or even deleted. The issue here is your way of thinking going by your delete rationale and comment above. I find that pretty worrying.Tamsier (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of us" clearly refers to the very systemic bias you allude to: the fact that the large majority of editors are not from African countries, have little knowledge of the validity of most sources, and -surprise! - are hence well advised to ask for input when making these judgement calls. If you feel inclined to provide such input instead of parading your cultural high dudgeon around, I suggest you do so here; if you just want to blow off steam about my personal shortcomings, take it to my or your talk page. Although it seems to me that if you manage to take offence from a nomination such as mine, which is about as hedged as you will see at AfD, you might be in the wrong corner of WP at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to
equal shouldering of the responsibility to provide good articles that would be a two-way street instead of trying to shoot the messenger. Otr500 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eff Raps.

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

Page is largely unsourced, and a notability template has been hanging on the page for over a half a year. I could not find enough significant coverage on an outside search to justify

WP:NMUSIC criteria. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails
WP:TOOSOON. There's something funny about the "music career" section, too... supposedly he was invited to play at Creamfields, the UK's biggest dance music festival, nine years before he made his first record? I've checked the line-ups for both Creamfields 2008 and Underage Festival 2010, and Mr. Ukaegbu doesn't appear on either of them, either under his real name or the name Eff Raps. My guess is that Mr. Ukaegbu or his promotional team have exaggerated the facts slightly, and that he probably appeared as an uncredited teenage MC during one of the presentations by a grime or drum 'n' bass act. If Mr. Ukaegbu does become notable in the near future I would have no objection to the article being recreated, but right now there don't appear to be the sources. Richard3120 (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete since subject fails
WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 11:12, 31 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipso facto selecto

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

~~I believe this article is a hoax.~~ The ref provided for Thomas Gray makes no mention of this phrase, and I cannot find any other sources that do. I don’t believe the phrase is really Latin or that it means what the article claims it means. It’s possibly someone’s humorous expression but whatever it is, it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot to mention that the editor who created this has only made one other contribution to Wikipedia, by vandalising the article Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This phrase can be found in this book, in a context that appears to align with the definition in the article. The phrase can also be found in a few online blogs and legal documents with the same usage as mentioned in the article. This leads be to believe the article is not a complete hoax. The phrase may not have anything to do with Thomas Gray, but it does exist and appears to mean what the article says. MarkZusab (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks. Yes when I search now I also find the google books hit. However the only other instances of the term ‘ipso facto selecto’ that come up are as the name of a racehorse. I don’t get any blogs or legal docs at all. Could you share some links for these please? Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The links I first found using the term were this, this, and this. MarkZusab (talk) 03:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to the links found by MarkZusab I no longer believe this is a hoax. It is apparently a humorous tag meaning ‘According to the facts I have selected.’ If the consensus here is that the topic is notable then I’d suggest entirely removing the content of the existing article and replacing it with the definition I’ve proposed, supported by the sources provided. It may otherwise be a candidate for Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase may exist, and may have the meaning claimed (although, personally, I read it as meaning
WP:AGF to him, both sources in the article fail verification so the link to Thomas Gray is almost certainly untrue, and tracing the etymology of a Latin phrase to Old English just screams hoax to me. All that is left is a dicdef, but I don't think there is even enough evidence for an entry on Wiktionary. The requirements there are for at least two usage examples in durably archived sources published more than a year apart. Currently, we have only one. SpinningSpark 11:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete since there is nothing to support the subject's independent notability. This is simply an esoteric, humorous, latin neologism and nothing more. Our of a molehill some try creating mountains and others articles in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 31 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Jenkins

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

From declined PROD: Doesn't meet

WP:ENTERTAINER. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No significant coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 02:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the person who originally placed the prod. Nikki♥311 23:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete - clearly not notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant link to support this article. Barca (talk) 06:35, 30 May 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.

Adarsh Vengarathodi

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

Non-notable business person. Praxidicae (talk) 18:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a TOO SOON. Trillfendi (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand that India have a population of over a billion people, but Wikipedia is not the place where people should create billion of articles on not notables.--Biografer (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable person in the Indian Startup ecosystem. He has been delegate/speaker for many international start up programs such as Global Entrepreneurship Summit and has appeared on many television news programs. Sandeepkumarlix (talk) 09:36, 26 May 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. Sandstein 19:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Máire Ní Ciaragain

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

Fails

WP:GNG. She seems to have led some Irish against some English sometime in the 15th century. All cited to a single sentence in a single book. All attempts to find more details/sources were fruitless. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment likewise I can’t find any reliable sources, except that a google search brings up this jstor article. I can’t read Irish but it may contain something useful. Mccapra (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a false positive, I'm afraid. The article title translates as "The home country of

significant coverage in reliable sources. --Scolaire (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Comment Ok thanks for checking that. I could see it was about O’Donovan Rossa but couldn’t get any further than that. Mccapra (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails
Wikipedia is not a wholly inclusive list of historical information, even though we must reserve doubt as to the historical accuracy of the contexted text, which is, however, an issue for a totally different field. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 31 May 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 deleted

(non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Looge maxamed

Looge maxamed (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)

What the heck even is this page Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete. Written in Somoli language. As per google translate "Mohammed. The clan militia is one of the most important clans in the region, especially the younger generation of youngsters, who were born as the only ones". No idea which Mohammed or which clan it is referred to, thus cant even try to do a BEFORE and nothing found on "Looge maxamed" in En on the internet.
talk) 17:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Speedy delete It's nonsense in any language. This is a persistent problem from several socks/meatsocks on SOWiki. Praxidicae (talk) 18:04, 24 May 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. Sandstein 19:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK European Union Party

UK European Union Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Little to no notable sources. No notable political impact. No electoral results. No notable persons involved. Any political party can register for £150 and this party has nothing else beyond appearing on a ballot paper doktorb _words^deeds 15:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 17:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, non-notable. Theoretically, this could change if they succeed in getting MEPs elected to the European Parliament when the results are announced on Sunday night, but that seems highly unlikely based on the exit polls. SpinningSpark 09:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the SIGCOV in the Evening Standard and The New European pushes the party over the GNG hump. schetm (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - received 0.2% of national vote share - around 35,000 people voted for them [4]. Queeninbriefs (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which corresponds to 18th place and no seats, even under proportional representation. SpinningSpark 12:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per schetm, the party has received coverage from prominent news sources. Greenleader(2) (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Election results now available. An encyclopaedia needs to cover obscure facts

Week keep Even appearing on the ballot in a significant number of seats is some sort of claim to notability. PatGallacher (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as others above. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Queeninbriefs (talk) with Reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject distinctly fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE (Wikipedia must include "obscure facts"?!) but these do not hold water. The subject party, which has been created speficically for the 2019 election, has been mentioned only twice in reliable media before the election, and precisely zero times afterwards. That is certainly not significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources. Emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Multiple sources? schetm (talk) 13:27, 31 May 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
WP:SNOW keep. I'm withdrawing my nomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Michael Youssef

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Michael Youssef

Articles for deletion/Michael Youssef (2nd nomination)

Michael Youssef (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:BASIC. Sources are either unreliable, or not in depth. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--sources #3, #4, and #5 are independent, reliable, and enough in depth to count for notability. However, the video on one of them doesn't work because it is archived, making it hard to assess. I found two other independent, in-depth enough sources here and here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An author of 35 books is likely to be notable. However I would be happier if his church were notable enough to have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Apostles (Atlanta).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he does seem to pass
WP:NAUTHOR as significant in his field for example worldcat shows 2400 library holdings of his works which is a strong indicator of notability suggesting they would be widely reviewed Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep- it looks passes
WP:NAUTHOR--MA Javadi (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep lots of coverage comes up in news archive searches - going back decades. Note that he is foounder and pastor of a large, prominent Church of the Apostles (Atlanta).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references 4 and 5 is considering as reliable sources.Fatzaof (talk) 13:42, 27 May 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. Tone 15:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Khanduri

Manish Khanduri (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 for not winning the election. Notability is not inherited through father being notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 14:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Fails
WP:NOTINHERITED.The same reasons I noted here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP The subject is a politician and has contested the biggest election in India. He is a notable personality. Also, as per Wiki's guideline, a politician of such level is a notable person. Rudra9 (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP Policy? NPOL doesn't assign notability to mere candidates; but only to elected members. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear
WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Since he is not elected members fail passes
WP:NPOL. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:06, 30 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ted B. Morton

Ted B. Morton (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 as a county legislator. GPL93 (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not much notability here.TH1980 (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are abysmal. Trillfendi (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all sources are primary or are associated with the subject. There's only one reliable, secondary source I saw, but that's not enough to meet
WP:NPOL since he doesn't have a state-level position. INeedSupport ^:3 17:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Terrance McCracken

Terrance McCracken (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 as a county legislator. GPL93 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Richard A. Slisz

Richard A. Slisz (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 as a county legislator. GPL93 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Peter J. Savage III

Peter J. Savage III (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 as a county legislator. GPL93 (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Tom Cilmi

Tom Cilmi (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 as a county legislator. GPL93 (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete.
WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Dino Fudoli

Dino Fudoli (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 as a county legislator. GPL93 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:53, 24 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Moehle

William Moehle (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)

Supervisor for a municipality of 36,000. Fails
WP:GNG pass. GPL93 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 14:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

*Delete Fails
talk) 15:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
*Delete I read though this myself, and besides it only having LinkedIn profiles, a Biography on the town website(with no information on who wrote it for that matter), and the PDF that only serves to prove that he is a mayor, I decided to look him up on Google and most of the results were either Biographys on the towns page, or interviews. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:13, 24 May 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. Tone 15:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April Rain,band

April Rain,band (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)

Poorly sourced article about a band, whose only stated notability claim is that they and their music exist. As always, existence is not an automatic inclusion guarantee on Wikipedia in and of itself — to actually get in here, a band needs to be
self-published social networking content (Last.fm, vk.com) and a Q&A interview on a non-notable WordPress blog in which the band members are speaking about themselves in the first person. None of these are notability-supporting sources, but the article claims nothing about them that's "inherently" notable enough to earn the "keep and flag for reference improvement" treatment. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current first footnote, an article in a publication called Fake Music Magazine, appears to be a reasonably reliable outlet for their country's music, but otherwise I can find little else in any language beyond self-produced social media and routine industry listings. It's either
promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:46, 26 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Deshmukh

Pratik Deshmukh (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

Ravensfire (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Ravensfire (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Ravensfire (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete subject has less than 200 twitter followers and only 2 film (actor) credits on imdb. Subject does have a few trivial online interviews but not enough to meet WP:ENT. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:52, 25 May 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.

Sitt al-'Ajam

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

It's very hard to assess the sources as the majority are offline, but if indeed "her main merit was writing a commentary on ibn Arabi's Mashahid" as the article states, then I would argue she is unlikely to be notable, and does not appear to meet

WP:GNG or academic/writer guidelines. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google tosses up a few more sources that mention the subject, albeit in passing. Nevertheless, virtually any 13th century author whose works have survived to the present and continue to be discussed would seem to be notable to my view. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the coverage in the sources already in the article and RaiderAspect's argument. (In practice any known medieval writer whose writings have survived is sure to have been covered in some depth my multiple sources.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
WP:AUTHOR just don't seem particularly relevant for 13th-century figures; in practice, their domain of application is the living and sometimes the recently deceased. And writing commentaries is what a lot of medieval notables are best known for. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The subject of this article parallels many other articles we have on historic rabbis and Christian scholars. The sourcing is sound and I can’t see any case for deletion at all. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there’s a paper on academia.edu on the topic of her work here and her main book still seems to be in print. Mccapra (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appear to be an extraordinary number of sources for a 13th century figure. The nominator dismisses the intellectual weight of commentary, especially within a tradition such as Sufism, at their own peril.
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. If her reputation has lasted so long she is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:37, 26 May 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. Clearly passes NFOOTY, player has played at the highest international level, No clear rationale to either the nomination or the sole delete vote. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Frederick

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

Marvin Frederick is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. There are no reference sources available. Oddparents (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Oddparents (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This source suggests he has played at least 9 games in the Grenada Premier League. That is a
WP:NFOOTBALL. While that's not a hard-and-fast rule, I see no reason not to follow it in this instance. In addition, he seems to have played at least 8 times on the national team, which adds weight to including him. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- @Hugsyrup: It's not a fully-professional league. It's listed in the section "Top level leagues which are not fully professional". However, he has played for his national team, which means he passes point one. Number 5 7 12:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He's played eight matches for the
WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 12:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international player for small island nation; meets
WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - a player who has played for his national team is notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes
WP:NFOOTBALL easily. Close this now to avoid wasting any more time. Smartyllama (talk) 19:00, 28 May 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.

WP:NPASR. T. Canens (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

C. Sylendra Babu

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

The article sheds no light on notability and a Google gives lots of Indian news articles, but they are largely passing police references or about charity runs. His rank is certainly senior, but from what I can see it isn't top rank, although I could be wrong. It reads like a badly written biography about a random unknown person. I find it strange how this article has been on wiki for almost 9 years! UaMaol (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment — A director general of police (DGP) is certainly a senior
Indian order of precedence]. Not going to !vote on this, though. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 21:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

'Comment — The Director General of Police is the highest ranking official in the Indian Police Service. With less than 100 officers of the same rank serving across various states in India.
Unsigned comment by: Special:Contribs/27.57.34.3 (10:16, 10 May 2019)

If he is the highest ranking official in the IPS, then how can there be less than 100 others with the same rank as him? Surely enough there would be one if it were the highest rank, would it not? The rank in question appears to be more alike the Chief constable in the UK and CD's, each in charge of a territorial police force. There are 53 of these, and much alike the Indian counterpart, being one alone does not make a person notable enough to have an article. Of that 53, there are 17 with articles, most of these struggle with notability. UaMaol (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely passes
WP:ANYBIO, holding a higher (notable) position in police force, DGP is the apex rank in Indian Police Service in The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.--PATH SLOPU 14:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article with main article Indian Police Service. The subject is notable but it should merge with the main article.Forest90 (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose merge. The subject of this article is Director General of the Railway Police which puts him in the range of possibly notable depending on what he’s done. I can’t see any content here that would warrant being merged into a general article on the police. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject of this article has a senior job but nothing about his career has any proper source, so his notability in that respect is not established. The rest of the article is about awards he’s won, at least some of which may be notable, and about sports and charity work. All of this together may make him generally notable but I’ve done a random check on some of the refs from The Hindu. In some cases the link goes straight to a news item but in others it goes to a general archive page and when I search on the date, no story shows with the title stated in the ref section of the article. If we’re keeping it, it will need significant trimming. Mccapra (talk) 03:57, 25 May 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.

Ram Chadha

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

WP:BLOGS rather than real media. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete fails

~~WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply

It's not enough to just say that: you have to show what you found. I get just one hit for him on Google News, for example, but one hit isn't enough to get a person over

Comment I googled him, Looks like passes General Notability criteria I would go for KEEP
talk) 19:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG — so what else do you think you're finding? Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Bearcat how about this 1 and 2 also 3 I found three links in google news. one more suggestion to the AFD reviewer if the result gets on keep Please move this page to Ramvir because this person is more notable with his stage name. --Siddharth 🤙🏻 Talk To Me!! 17:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It has been more than 2 weeks. Had a look at it again. 90k plays on Spotify, some coverage. scope_creep^Talk 20:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 19:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Consulate-General of Japan in Chennai

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) English name: Consulate-General of Japan in Chennai

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Japanese name: 在チェンナイ日本国総領事館

embassies are not always notable, and consulates even less so. info in

India-Japan relations. otherwise the article confirms the consulate's existence LibStar (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 04:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Embassies and consulates are sometimes located in historic buildings or buildings of particular architectural merit. They may also be built to resist explosions and earthquakes better than other buildings in their city. So it would be worthwhile to look for references about the building where this consulate is located, including the Indian equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 24 May 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.

Patrick van den Boogaard

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

Darts players have no specific notability criteria. Boogaard has yet to play in a major event. He fails GNG due to a lack of sources about him. Dougal18 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability per GNG with no applicable SNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 20:39, 24 May 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. Tone 15:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Electric Cars

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

Although this company received some media coverage, the company never produced anything, as can be seen from the Companies House accounts. Although the company raised funds, and received a grant, when it was liquidated by creditors, its only asset was a car that had been acquired for £1000, and its engine replaced: the car was sold in the liquidation for about £7000. It does not, therefore, have any notability as a company. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:02, 24 May 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. Sandstein 19:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leppings Lane

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

Non-notable street, no evidence is passes

Leppings Lane End at the Hillsborough Stadium Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about the street and the tram stop and the stand at Hillsborough. This broad topic is therefore notable, passes the
WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Keep per above.~~ ~~Toys515 (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)~~ sock comment struck Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:39, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing particularly noteworthy about the street, the stand and tram stop are named the same because of were they physically are, not because the street is of any note. The tram stop doesnt appear to be of any particularly note either but this shouldnt be used as a parking slot because it or the stand cant sustain an article. If they were of any note then this could be a dab page but a redirect to Hillsborough Stadium might be worth looking at. MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm torn between a redirect to Hillsborough Stadium (lots of coverage, but all about the stadium) and a weak keep, since the etymology is sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence of an etymology isn't grounds for notability; would a generic "Oak Street" be notable just for being sourced that oak trees were nearby? The quoted citation is not remotely substantive coverage about this street. The stops (not stations) on the tram are not notable for being a stop (other stops link to the district or nearby landmark). It does not make sense to combine an article for both the non-notable street and non-notable stands that are nearby anyway, and that's covered in the stadium article (the north stand and south stand are likewise not notable). A redirect would be fine though. Reywas92^Talk 23:09, 27 May 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. Tone 15:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geje Eustaquio

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. It was AfD twice and both time the result was delete - see 1 and 2 The last AfD was about 4.5 months ago and no change on subject fighting career except added addition bout in May 2019. Fails

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the third AFD in less than a year, during which time the only changes to the subject's bio are the results of two new fights in the same competition he's been part of since '15. Maybe salt for good measure? --RaiderAspect (talk) 05:26, 25 May 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.

Elizabeth Tolbert

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

WP:CRIME says perpetrators should be the subject of an article where ‘the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documentes historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.’ I don’t think this subject meets those criteria. Mccapra (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

talk) 08:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

delete I ran a Proquest news archive search with her name and various keywords, but this looks like a "routine" crime, with "routine" post conviction claims of innocence .E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes it seem like there is a lot of information out there about her but, clearly there’s not. Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a classic
WP:BLP1E. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 26 May 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. Tone 15:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Bell

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

Tagged for notability since 2009, I can’t find multiple reliable independent sources to support this article, which seems to be based largely on a single piece in Alternet dating from 2000. Mccapra (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment user:theinstantmatrix I see you’ve removed some !votes from this nomination. I’m not clear why. Could you explain please? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both previous commenters have been blocked for long-term abuse, so I suppose that's why their comments have been removed.
Phil Bridger (talk) 09:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ah ok thanks for letting me know. Mccapra (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Alternet source cited in the article is not reliable, and the citation to the Dollars & Sense source is insufficient for us to track it down because it contains neither article title nor author. Searching elsewhere for his supposedly most well-known invention with his surname draws a blank:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

I agree that coverage is probably too slight for an article - but what exactly is the issue with Alternet as a source? Has that been agreed on as an unreliable source for WP use somewhere, or is this just your own assessment? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much a question of whether Alternet is unreliable, but that that particular article is an interview.

Phil Bridger (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:12, 26 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stirling

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

Have added a couple of references, but not seeing significant coverage of this dramatist and actor. Tacyarg (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 05:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes
WP:NACTOR.--PATH SLOPU 13:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:35, 24 May 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 is to keep the article.

(non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 04:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The Giraffes (Brooklyn band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band which fails

WP:NBAND. Never charted, AllMusic profile doesn't even list half the albums they supposedly created. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply