Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 23 April	25 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Vanneman

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

I have added links to reviews, but still do not think this writer is notable - not enough coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR. Fairly unique name, searches turn up articles by him. I also searched the book titles, finding what looks like a news service notice/ promo for the one of the Sherlock Holmes books that was picked up by 2 minor newspapers, and a mention of the book in an essay, but not much else, certainly not enough to keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found articles by him, but not much about him or his works. As well as the reviews now in the article, I found one in Library Journal, so that is 5 reviews altogether of 2 novels, in Kirkus Reviews, Publishers Weekly, and Library Journal. That might be enough if the reviews were very positive, though if they were, I would expect to find reviews in newspapers, etc, too. But in fact, they're not positive, or only weakly so - "fails to live up to its initial promise", "The plot quickly devolves into a bad episode of The X-Files", "the book goes on too long", "Spotty stuff, but Watson in love just might be worth the price", "The story itself does not keep one's attention ... this work is not recommended", "the awkward prose could use more speed and less help from the thesaurus", and the mention in the essay is along the same lines - "Sadly, some years later, a Chicagoan named Alan Vanneman, who by his own admission has a large television and likes reading about dinosaurs, wrote a book called Sherlock Holmes and the Giant Rat Of Sumatra, thereby proving that withheld treasures, once granted, turn to ashes in a reader's hands." Another review I found online on the Historical Novel Society website says "It [the first few chapters] was great! And then… it digressed. Instead of the continuation of suspense and intrigue, the author brings us into Dr. Watson’s personal life, .... While I’m always up for a good love story and family life, it just doesn’t fit well in Sherlock’s world. [It] finishes off quite well." So none of the reviewers thought he was a notable writer - not even notably bad. I haven't found anything about his other works. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NAUTHOR. On some rare occasions, kamikaze accounts create worthwhile Wikipedia articles. This is not one of them. -The Gnome (talk) 17:14, 1 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GameGO!

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

Video game magazine that published exactly one issue before failing. Second issue was completed and released online as a pdf. Not notable and fails WP:GNG. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any case to redirect it to GameFan either, as it has 0 presence in reliable sources. --Izno (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article itself provides no sources, and I have been unable to find any myself after some searches. Which, is not very surprising given what a minor publication this magazine turned out to be. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the GNG, and reads like a vanity project/POV pushing eulogy. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one issue and a PDF does not make a magazine worthy of discussion, sadly. Mattsephton (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as severely non-notable. Only one published issue, and zero coverage in reliable sources (or even unreliable ones, for that matter). The mentioned coverage is not even enough for a mention in a section of another article, making redirecting a non-option. Geolodus (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced. Doesn't seem notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per all the above a single issue does not make a magazine notable. Alex-h (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There have been notable single issue magazines, this is not a notable single-issue magazine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 1 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 withdrawn by nominator. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Pook

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

I cannot find any coverage of this pseudonymous author, except listings of the books and the subject's own website. The article's only link is to the subject's website, and some of the text of the article has been copy / pasted from there. Tacyarg (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added references - reviews of his books, and some quotes from them. I have deleted some of the content that was in the article - some copied from his website, and some contradicted by the sources, one of which gave his real name and occupation. I believe that he meets WP:AUTHOR - there are reviews by 6 different reviewers, 5 of them of good length, as well as some short ones by reviewers who clearly enjoyed them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kudos to the indefatigable Rebecca Green for sourcing it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator. Thank you, RebeccaGreen, for finding sources. Tacyarg (talk) 16:16, 1 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sumona Haque Sumi

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

The majority of the sources refer to her as Mashrafe Mortaza's wife. While her husband is definitely notable, she is not and notability is not inherited. The sources do not show this article passing WP:GNG, after conducting a quick google search. There is no claim to notability in the article and being a student in a university is certainly is not a valid claim to notability (which was given for removing the Prod). Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She is enough notable to be here.She is not dependent on her husband fame! She is a fashion designer and she worked Bangladesh leading Garment manufacturer companies like BGMEA and SMUCT! She is now working on MASH clothing brand as a designer which is she also co owner of this brand. She is actively working on different fashion designing project and shows. and time to time people contribute more in this article.She is enough notable to be here :

Has a large fan base or a significant cult following.
Has made unique, prolific contributions to a field of fashion designing and as a entrepreneur invest in different project example :mash clothing brand.
The person has created or played a major role in creating a significant or well-known work.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in garments manufacturer . (women empowerment in Bangladesh)
She has been writing enough in the newspaper.
She is an independent women and Working freely as a designer and entrepreneur.

All the references to the article are written about her. people will contribute time to time to make this article more strong and reliable. She is enough notable to be here,I don't think so this article need to be delete. Time to time this article will update with more information and references.Hafiz ansi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The first source is titled Mashrafe’s Love and Marriage, the second article is Narail 2: Mashrafe’s wife campaigns for husband, the third is Mashrafe-Sumona 10th wedding anniversary today, the fourth is Voters hypnotised by eloquent campaign of Mashrafe's wife, and the fifth source is Mashrafe’s wife continues campaign in Narail. See if you notice a trend. The fourth source is just Mashrafe's profile on Cricbuzz, which has been misrepresented as Sumi studied at narail victoria college in the article. Source seven is dead. Source eight and nine does not mention her and have been wrongly titled in the article.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In cricbuzz last line read please written they were studied at same College!

And 'sumi love & marriage' also writen same thing sumi was studied at victoria college

And wiki editors Will time to time fix this article and information!

I think she is enough notable and in,future more new information will update on this article so there is nothing need to be remove!

There have many of article which is not actually not notable enough are still available in wikipedia and there have many article which is indirectly depend on their father/husband business/company but still available because created by admins,but Sumi is a independent fashion designer, a co owner of mash clothing brand and work as a designer and she have notable many things.

Ya in this article maybe some references have problem.

I think this article will update better in future so there is no need to be remove!

After all your decision Hafiz ansi (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable yet. All Bengali/English sources i can find refer her as Mashrafe Mortaza's wife. His name appears on some of the regular news coverage which is not enough to establish notability. fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. She is married to someone famous (and Wikinotable) but in this encyclopaedia notability is not contagious. Let's say its too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, possible case of WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:06, 1 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paris 1850

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

Novel I'm not sure about notability for. I can't find that much about it either. If not delete, then a redirect to Vampire Plagues series (which I can't find any other articles for any of the other novels on here, likely were merged or deleted already if made) Wgolf (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:BK. Tacyarg (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the article on the author (Ben Jeapes) as it could be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this kamikaze-created text since subject fails WP:NBOOK. -The Gnome (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO for a book. Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 1 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. The delete camp has made much more specific arguments as to why the sources do not establish notability, which have not been rebutted. The sock's argument - aside from now being blocked - hasn't convinced anyone else. Redirects at editorial discretion, since most people favour deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Green Mountain Party

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

Party has no elected officers and little to no membership. Almost all sources here are self-published or “Letter to the editor” types, and none of them provide significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 18:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this absolutely unnotable political party. Trillfendi (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this party has achieved the status of minor party in Vermont, the first since the Progressives in the 1980s, and in order to do so was required to reach a threshold of organization in ten towns and is featured in multiple non-editorial articles. User:Jon698 (User talk:Jon698) 00:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Party organization in Vermont is not an establishment of notability; all it requires is basically having three people in ten towns (Vermont has 250 towns, 10 being 4%). You can theoretically "organize" a party with 30 people. Sources have not given non-trivial coverage (saying something exists doesn't make it notable). Toa Nidhiki05 01:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jon698. ImBadWithUsernames (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This account seems highly suspicious. It only has a handful of edits, one of which was to, without a summary of context, remove tags placed by another user on a page Jon698 was heavily involved on. This user has virtually no other edits. Toa Nidhiki05 13:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You found a single example of me editing the same article as somebody, who is one of the most prolific political related article makers and who has edited and created thousands of articles. You probably have more overlap with Jon and your account is more suspicious from your recent 24 hour editing blocking. ImBadWithUsernames (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to satisfy the absolute bare minimum requirements for notability, lucky for it thats all that is required. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has been covered by a sufficient number of independent sources. For example: [1], [2].--01:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namiba (talk • contribs)

The first source is a blog. The second acknowledges the party exists. Neither represent significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 03:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization represents something possibly quite noble but Wikipedia is not a forum for the promotion of ideology. The subject clearly does not possess independent and verifiable notability, since almost all sources cited & traced are self-referential, typical listings, or name drops. Let's hope it's only a case of too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mountain Party as a plausible redirect. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:59, 2 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) 07:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWE: Undertaker - From the Vault

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

Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by IP editor. StaticVapor message me! 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am trying to understand what sets this apart from any of the other ones in Category:WWE albums. Unless I am missing something, they all meet #5 in WP:NALBUM, but this is not a subject I edit often so I am not really sure. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that’s the intended application to that music guideline. I think that’s saying that, for example, if WWE made the new Shinedown or Papa Roach single their next theme song for their next special pay per view event of whatever, it’d probably be a notable song. I could be mistaken too though - most of the time these choose really popular songs that easily meet the GNG without that. Anyways, point being, I think we’d generally still want to see it meet the WP:GNG through third party sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is that some of those albums have been promoted significantly and covered in reliable sources. While this is just a random compilation that was released that is not a notable release to anyone. StaticVapor message me! 23:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and looking at the rest of these WWE music articles, I’m guessing the opposite of what Galatz was saying is true - none of these releases are notable. They all seem to be little more than track listings and a paragraph of prose sourced to retail listings and/or ITunes/Spotify. Unless all these articles were written by writers who were all just completely striking out in finding and using reliable sources, they all may be non-notable. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I do not believe thats the opposite of what I said. I see them all as the same, either all notable or all not. I have never really worked with the WP:NALBUM criteria before, so I am trying to get a better understand of how they are applied, that is why I didn't vote. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn’t mean it as commentary against you personally. You said they probably all meet criteria # 5. My stance is that they probably all fail it, and the GNG. When I say opposite, I just meant we’re on opposite ends - you say “pass”, I say “fail”. That’s all. Sergecross73 msg me 11:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nom notes, it fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. A lot of space is being wasted arguing on the basis of "other similar stuff already exists in Wikipedia". Which never helps. -The Gnome (talk) 17:39, 1 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 and redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters#Frylock. Apparently per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) we do not have any notability criteria for individual characters from works of fiction, so the general notability guideline has to apply - and none of the keeps have shown evidence that it does, the parent series being does not make individual characters notable. And the claim in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frylock that the deletes are all referencing is that the general notability guideline is not met. So delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frylock

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

Was turned into a redirect as the result of an AfD back in 2011, and nothing has changed since back then. Should be a redirect, but you have an editor who doesn't agree with the prior AfD insisting on re-creating the article. So the article should now be deleted, and then a redirect created to prevent spurious re-creation in the future. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect My analysis is the same as Onel's and so this should be a delete first and then redirect, not just a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above. The ATHF cast doesn't need pages. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect per nom. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering Frylock is one of the three central characters of ATHF, and considering that the show is one of Adult Swim's more notable shows, it should probably stay. An effort could additionally be made to add more sources. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a major character from a long-running series he is sure to have decent notability. The article really just needs a good re-write. Grapesoda22 (✉) 04:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of which are actually policy grounds for keep. Notability is not inherited.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per nom and others. Eagleash (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per nom.Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - a notable character from a very notable show. The page does need a bit of rewriting to add more sources, but it should stay. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:08, 1 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 and redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Apparently per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) we do not have any notability criteria for individual characters from works of fiction, so the general notability guideline has to apply - and none of the keeps have shown evidence that it does, the parent series being does not make individual characters notable. And the claim in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatwad that the deletes are all referencing is that the general notability guideline is not met. So delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meatwad

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

Was turned into a redirect as the result of an AfD back in 2011, and nothing has changed since back then. Should be a redirect, but you have an editor who doesn't agree with the prior AfD insisting on re-creating the article. So the article should now be deleted, and then a redirect created to prevent spurious re-creation in the future. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Solely in-universe perspective both here and in coverage. Fictional elements need to have some coverage outside of their universe to be notable enough for a stand-alone article, i.e. information about the individual character’s development and design, or critical reception to the character, reliably sourced and independent of the subject (WP:GOLDENRULE). Red Phoenix ^talk 18:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect My analysis is the same as Onel's and so this should be a delete first and then redirect, not just a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect per nom. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Considering that Meatwad is one of the three central characters of ATHF, and considering that the show is one of Adult Swim's more notable shows, it should probably stay. An effort could additionally be made to add more sources. IceWalrus236 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as a major character from a long-running series he is sure to have decent notability. The article really just needs a good re-write. Grapesoda22 (✉) 04:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of which are actually policy grounds for keep. Notability is not inherited.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect as per nom. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - a notable character from a very notable show. The page does need a bit of rewriting to add more sources, but it should stay. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aqua Teen Hunger Force since subject does not possess significant and independent Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 1 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 redirect to Adult Swim. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Brutananadilewski

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

Was turned into a redirect as the result of an AfD back in 2011, and nothing has changed since back then. Should be a redirect, but you have an editor who doesn't agree with the prior AfD insisting on re-creating the article. So the article should now be deleted, and then a redirect created to prevent spurious re-creation in the future. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect My analysis is the same as Onel's and so this should be a delete first and then redirect, not just a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a major character from a long-running series he is sure to have notability. The article really just needs a good re-write.

Also, saying that "nothing has changed" since 2011 is a pretty bold claim, considering that the version that was nominated then featured 20 less viable sources then it does now, as well as 3 less out-of-universe sections then it does now. Grapesoda22 (✉) 04:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION. Such original research based on primary sources is fine for wikia, but we require more. The character does not seem to have been a subject of anything but briefest mentions in passing in other sources. No in-depth coverage. Trivia-level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per nom. Not notable outside of ATHF. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Carl is one of the central characters of the show (and a long-running one, at that), and simply just clean up and rewrite the article. IceWalrus236 (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - a notable character from a very notable show. The page does need a bit of rewriting to add more sources, but it should stay. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adult Swim since subject does not possess significant and independent Wikinotability. It's interesting that no evidence to the contrary is presented in this discussion. I also watch the show but that's not relevant. -The Gnome (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect - Virtually none of the references being used can be considered reliable, secondary sources. While its easy to find hits with the character's name on searches, it has not been demonstrated that any of these can be used to establish independent notability for the character. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't see a case for content deletion here. If anything was merged from here (and I see a couple of sentences worth merging at the very least), it would cause a licencing problem. Why not full protect instead? Daß Wölf 19:35, 1 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Bindra

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

Actress who looks like she falls under too soon (actually surprised this wasn't tagged at least in 2015 when it went up as we were way more strict then the early days) anyway-she has only had 2 roles so far. Not sure if either was that big for her either. Wgolf (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:45, 24 April 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? 17:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 17:47, 1 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) 07:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for Reading

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

A series of minute long shorts that seemingly aired in the late 70's. The article is unsourced, and orphaned, and has been since its creation 12 years ago. I did the usual searches for any reliable sources, and found absolutely nothing substantial. The most I found was the series name listed in a index of AV material from the Library of Congress that shows that it did, apparently, exist. However, there is absolutely nothing out there that I have found that shows any sort of notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NN AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added some sources but they consist of two short review blurbs of the series and a short article that reports on the IRA awards in 1980 and has two or three sentences about Hooray for Reading. I don't think this PSA series is sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Redirection or merge would be preferable to deletion, but there's no good target. Discussing this one program in Field Communications or International Reading Association would be WP:UNDUE, and there's no article for program creator Alan Sloan. So I end up at delete for now, but remain open to reconsideration if someone unearths more significant coverage. Bakazaka (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject does not pass WP:NMEDIA. Kudos to Bakazaka for the lifeboat and the objectivity. As it happens, I enjoy this kind of shows quite a lot but Wikipedia is not the place to look for everything. -The Gnome (talk) 17:52, 1 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. Only one person is asserting that GNG and related guidelines are met, the others don't agree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hilton

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

WP:BLP of a political strategist who has never held any role that confers an automatic free pass of WP:NPOL just because he exists, but is not reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG. Holding a role within a political party's internal organizational structure can get a person into Wikipedia if they're well-sourced as the subject of coverage about their work in that role, but every single link listed under either "references" or "external links" is one of three things: a primary source that does not constitute support for notability at all, a brief glancing namecheck of his existence in a news article about somebody else, or a source that just soundbites his personal advice on basic career planning strategies. As well, the article has been flagged for notability and sourcing issues since 2010 without seeing significant improvement. Not even one of these references is substantively about him for the purposes of getting him over GNG, but the role he held is not so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from actually having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL Lubbad85 (☎) 01:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:BASIC/WP:GNG (especially if one considers the external links) and therefore its irrelevant whether or not it meets WP:NPOL. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. As a side note, the text has been created by a kamikaze account and then amplified by another one. Election time is AfD overtime. -The Gnome (talk) 17:57, 1 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) 07:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manon von Gerkan

AfDs for this article:

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

The "logic" for keeping this article in the first AfD was absolutely stupid. It was really every reason why notability is not inherited. You mean to say that being the "partner" of David Blaine is a valid reason to keep this article? My jaw is about to hit the floor. And of course, predictably, the problems of this article were never rectified upon keeping. Even the "snow keep" voter gave reason why sources were NOT reliable. This article is 4 fucking sentences! One of them is "she is the daughter of..." and "the former girlfriend of..." in the same damn sentence. Someone even tried to justify unreliable and unacceptable source IMDb as a reason to keep. What is this website coming to. Trillfendi (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would ask the nominator to keep the anger out of his or her nominations. It doesn't help. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not angry.... I'm just telling the truth. Trillfendi (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you're angry or not, your rhetoric is unconstructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look past what you think the "tone" is and simply see it for what it is: an article of 4 sentences whose claim to notability is that she once dated a magician. Absurdity. Trillfendi (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Trillfendi. I second the comments by Bbb23 and Eastmain. The AfD process is already arduous as it is and commentary that invites friction does not help. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out the swearing, this is read by minors Atlantic306 (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minors reading a deletion page on Wikipedia isn’t going to reform freedom of speech. But since Bbb23 wants to leave it there, it is what it is. 4 poorly sourced sentences. Trillfendi (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." - Epinoia (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:ENT. -The Gnome (talk) 18:01, 1 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology Democracy Party

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

Does not appear to have any elected officials or any significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete article on a very minor, state level party that is entirely primary sourced. Party was founded by a non-notable individual. Searches turn up far too little to justify keeping. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of substantive sources or evidence it was ever an active party. Reywas92^Talk 07:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as appears non notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:32, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Lazareva

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

Many problems here.... One, the creator of the article redirected their user page to the article for completely inexplicable reasons. (That's just weird). Two, the notability tag has been there over 2 years. Three, not only is there vague promotion going on here, but inaccurate or obsolete information that isn't even verifiable. Delete this atrocity. Trillfendi (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No any proof of notability. There is another more notable person with same name (ru:Лазарева, Светлана Юрьевна). My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As noted by people here, for someone to get an article on Wikipedia we need evidence that other people have written about them in a significant capacity. That does not seem to be the case here, so delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (radio presenter)

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

Hardly any information. Lots of unsourced material was deleted in January 2019 and not replaced since then. I would have thought a radio personality such as Gary King would have more sources, but looking online, there's not much around.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've reinstated much of the previously deleted information after finding audio clips of Gary working at the stations mentioned in the article. The article now contains seven references. Rillington (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these references are audio which doesn't meet WP:RS criteria. - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being audio rather than printed isn't in itself a problem, as long as the recordings are available somewhere such as in an archive or on the Internet. Bearcat has identified the actual problem with these sources below. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A radio personality's notability is not secured by the existence of audio recordings of him doing his job — it is secured by the existence of third party sources writing or talking about him in the third person. But the only source here which represents third party coverage at all is not about him — it's just a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose primary subject is something else, which is not enough to make him notable all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the minutiae described above. I found a source which proves that Gary worked at the stations listed in the article and to me it seems as though this minutiae is being used as justification to shred the article. Rillington (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not minutiae that are being described above, but Wikipedia's inclusion guideline's such as the general notability guideline. Yes, you have proved that King worked where he worked, but that doesn't mean that we should have an article on him. I can also prove where I have worked, but that also doesn't mean that there should be an article about me. What is needed is other people writing independently about him. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that's what I did. However this won't be possible if the article is deleted. Rillington (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean other people writing about him on Wikipedia, but writing about him in independent reliable sources on which we can base a Wikipedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other people writing journalism about him in media. The baseline that a person has to meet to qualify for an article on Wikipedia is not just "it is possible to verify that he exists" — it is "he has been the subject of media coverage, written by other people, in newspapers or books or magazines". Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valid concerns appear to exist about redirecting, so I didn't do this Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dora the Female Explorer

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

There are no sources cited, and I can't find any information about this single from a reliable source. It was not on any major charts, and the article only claims that it is important because it helped get attention to the group from people in the music business. That does not make it important for itself, and its name is not even on the wiki page for the band. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Singles Naddruf (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stackridge (album), unless other editors think the redirect might confuse readers looking for Dora the Explorer. Richard3120 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess technically "Dora La Exploradora" translates to Dora the Female Explorer, but that's a fairly sexist translation.Naddruf (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not so sure a redirect to the album is wise due to possible confusion with the cartoon character. The coincidental title may have inspired the creation of this song article in the first place, but the song itself is non-notable across the board. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your reservations about the redirect, which is why I felt it was worth mentioning to see what other editors thought. I have no objections to deletion if this is the case. Richard3120 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the single didn't chart it is not notable and doesn't meet for Wikipedia:Notability (music) singles, "That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." - Epinoia (talk) 01:21, 1 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natascha Börger

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

Simply put, she does not meet notability for beauty pageant participants. Trillfendi (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is a specific guideline of WP:BIO being cited? I would agree that notability isn't met if she was only a contestant, but it seems she has one at least three beauty pageants, including Miss Germany. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to these people, I follow the guidelines of WikiProject Beauty Pageants. From what I know it has to be a major beauty pageant like Miss Universe, Miss World, etc. That Miss Germany pageant hasn't affiliated with the major ones in decades. Trillfendi (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No beauty pageant gives its winner default notability. We need ssignificant coverage which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Well, if analyst reports are considered proof of notability by the pertinent notability guideline, that would be a reason to keep until the guideline is changed - and that would require a discussion elsewhere. Also, Matthew hk's sources have not been refuted by the delete camp. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sateri

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

Routine company. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT particularly. scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a high-profile company, but I did find some third-party coverage attesting to its notability, see Credit Suisse research and CEO Magazine. CEO Magazine says Sateri is the world's top producer of viscose fibre. Credit Suisse estimated its 2012 revenue at US$ 1.4 billion, and presumably higher by now. That's notable enough by my standard. -Zanhe (talk) 03:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That CEO magazine article is literally a press release reprint - google phrases from it - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - no sourcing available and the AFD's had long enough to find any that isn't press release reprints - David Gerard (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

Analyst reports
1. Credit Suisse published a 18 January 2011 analyst report at https://research-doc.credit-suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&source=ulg&format=PDF&document_id=868415111&serialid=RlW61pjP9ociuBYHuruLbq1cyvloQeGJbyddNySNO4U%3D^{Internet Archive} written by analysts Kenny Lau and Adrian Chan that profiles Sateri. The report summarizes what the company does:
  Sateri is one of the largest manufacturers of specialty cellulose products in the world. Its specialty cellulose product line is one of the broadest among the major producers in the industry and includes both rayon grades and specialty grades of dissolving wood pulp, and viscose staple fibres, the downstream products of rayon grades of pulp.
  The report further notes:
  The key risks include: (1) macroeconomic-related risks, which may result in substantially lower selling prices of Sateri’s products; (2) expansion risks, as Sateri may look to expand aggressively beyond the current expansion plans; (3) competition risks; (4) acquisition risks; (5) customer concentration risks; (6) currency mismatch risks; (7) raw material risks; (8) reputational risks; (9) unexpected weather patterns, and key staff changes.
  There is more information about the risks on page 48 of the report.
2. CITIC Securities published a 3 September 2012 analyst report at https://www.citics.com.hk/file/research/6760_CSI%20Equity%20Daily%203%20Sep%2012.pdf^{Internet Archive} written by analysts Wallace Cheng and Lili Huang that profiles Sateri.
  The report notes:
  
  An integrated wood pulp and viscose fiber producer. The Company has established an integrated industrial chain that encompasses “timberland – dissolving wood pulp (DWP) facility – viscose staple fiber (VSF) facility”, boasting approximately 150,000 hectares of plantation land. The designed production capacity for its DWP and VSF facility is 485,000 tonnes and 160,000 tonnes respectively. The Company's self-sufficient capability on the raw materials of VSF is strong.
  The report further notes:
  Potential risks: demand for textile and apparel, which is the key end-user in the downstream of the DWP industrial chain, will remain sluggish. The Company's new 200,000-tonnes VSF capacity in Putian, Fujian cannot be put into production as scheduled.
3. Sun Hung Kai & Co. published a 26 November 2010 analyst report here^{Internet Archive} written by analyst Daniel So that profiles Sateri. The report notes that key concerns are:
  Involved in numerous litigation and legal proceedings, which the company says have arisen from normal business activities. These include civil, tax and labor cases, with 565 claims as at end-June 2010. Where the risk of loss has been evaluated as probable, the aggregate value of the claims is US$9.4m.
  
  Currency risk. Depreciation of the reporting currency USD could hurt profits, as this would increase operational costs, which are mainly denominated in Brazilian Real (BRL) and RMB.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sateri to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analyst reports are not WP:RSes - even if you add lots of words of puffery (linking WP:RS three times) to your claims about them. Do you have RSes?

And you're doing the filibustering ill-formatted wall of text thing again, that you previously said you'd stop doing. See other editors concerns as stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertcoin (3rd nomination), where it became clear that you doing this was becoming a behavioural issue, and it was causing problems in AFDs. You said that at least you'd put them in collapse-tags - but you seem not to be bothering any more, e.g. [3] and on this AFD - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Analyst reports are considered reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says (my bolding): "However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports."
I do not use collapse tags when I am posting only three sources. I use collapse tags only when I am posting more than three sources with sizable quotes (example here).
Cunard (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me when I say this style of posting is still obnoxious and filibustering enough in effect to constitute problematic editing - David Gerard (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with Bracell Limited. Financial Times, WSJ, Reuters. Basically it is weird to run back to back Afd with parallel articles. Bracell Limited, formerly known as Sateri, is a former listed company on the Main Board of HKEX (SEHK). I don't have time to dig out Brazilian source yet but it seem the company have news coverage from well known secondary source. Matthew hk (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge which way? - David Gerard (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sateri group still use Sateri as their trading name in China. Sateri seem the common name of the group despite the official name of the (former?) holding company had changed to Bracell Limited. A quick read of press release, in the eve of privatization, it seem some Sateri business was separated from Bracell Limited (formerly Sateri Holdings Limited), but the notable subject was the former listed company Sateri Holdings, seem better use "Sateri " as WP:Article titles (as common name), and don't carry much original reason on the fate of the company after privatization, which news article seem significantly smaller for company that went private from public. Matthew hk (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Greetings, dear Cunard. Could you please at least cut down on the use of the 'li', 'br', and 'ol' commands? The text gets really too long and cluttered and the AfD becomes even more strenuous. I consider AfD to be one of the most important processes in Wikipedia since, after all, it involves the "death penalty" for articles. So I believe we should always be trying to present our points the best way possible, which includes the laconic way. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It worries this question of using the clause re: analyst reports to establish notability in WP:RS. It is essentially stating that every public traded company will have an article on Wikipedia, even companies which are inherently not notable, e.g. mom an pop companies that may have some kind of product that they sell, perhaps they have inherited it from their parents, and they offers shares in the companies, in which there is reams of examples of that type. Another example would be startup that has developed a product, offering shares again, might only 10 people in the company, but an exciting, in your face, or trending, or new technology product, but all non notable by any WP notability criteria. In the UK there is 714000 people working in the UK banking industry, that is the highest level its been since 2007. Essentially what has been said here, is that roughly 1.07% of the UK population or 2.23% of the UK working population is deciding via analyst reports (the percentage is much smaller as only certain institutions produce them) what public traded organisation is notable, when all other policy criteria are taken into effect, like WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:ORGCRIT, for an example UK company. We need to have look at this. As an aside Cunard ref's only deal with the company finances, not the company as a whole. They also don't satisfy WP:ORGIND as the banks have a Vested Interest in producing these reports for their customers. scope_creep^Talk 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: You're seriously underestimating the challenge of getting a company listed on one of the major stock exchanges. It's a hugely expensive process involving teams of bankers, lawyers, accountants, and auditors and normally costs millions of dollars, and then maybe a million dollars annually just to get your quarterly and annual financial reports produced, audited, and published. Becoming a publicly listed on major stock exchanges such as NYSE, NASDAQ or HKEX is an inherent indicator of notability, and that's why we have the guideline WP:LISTED. It's definitely not something for your mom and pop companies. -Zanhe (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Zanhe: I was thinking about them at all. Your talking about premier listings. There is now a large number of exchange outfits that track listings for companies that perhaps are only valued at a couple of million or less and for example, may be developing new types of software e.g. block ledger tech and can potentially offer huge returns. There is quite a number of these now, and the startup scene is now so big now in the UK that banks are truly cognizant of this. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm try to make that a small percentage of the population is deciding what is notable for the majority. Obviously somebody has added it as notability clause, but not done the work determine how valid they are. There is no link between how well a companies finances are and how notable the company or/and how it well it is doing. There is no causal link. There is companies that con their auditors so well and vice versa it make them look that their doing well when in fact they are a crock, so in this instance the notability criteria is hollow. It has no standing. The analyst reports are only really accurate when you assume the audit is good, the company is good standing, genuily good standing and they are not trying to con you or con the auditor. Look at KPMG in the UK. It just been fined for providing a bad audit of some outfit and they have a history of doing this. They all do it, making the company look better that it actually is.

The reason I posted this was because I wanted a conversation about a company which has almost universal reports coming from people like the WWF, Greenpeace and human right outfits that report this company and its parent for huge amounts of deforestation in Indonesia. Its called out by numerous agencies including the European Unions for wholesale bio destruction. As the result of this all the sub companies and the main company articles have been a continual spam target and they have been using Wikipedia to promote their companies against the flak from these environmental companies. So, does the company only need good finances or be the biggest, to be notable. scope_creep^Talk 20:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing highly regulated major stock exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, LSE, HKEX, etc.) with largely unregulated OTC exchanges (see Over-the-counter (finance)). Companies traded on OTC are generally not notable, but those traded on major exchanges are. Also, Wikipedia does not WP:RIGHT WRONGS. We try to determine whether a topic is notable, but do not judge whether it deserves to be. -Zanhe (talk) 05:27, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bogojevic

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

"Multiple roles" my ass. What notability is there in appearing in bit parts in 4 movies 40 years ago? With the only "source" being an unknown book. Trillfendi (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not about the content of the article (WP:CONTN), but about the subject. The German Wikipedia article lists 34 films, 23 of which have articles on German Wikipedia. She starred in 4 and had significant roles in 6, so she certainly meets WP:NACTOR. The German WP article also gives an alternate form of her name, Sascha Bogojevic, which brings up more Google results. Access to German language sources for the 1970s and 80s would no doubt give more sources. (The book which is currently the sole reference is not unknown - it's on Google Books, for one thing. It appears to only include one of her films, so is not a great reference, but it's certainly not unknown.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And still all they offer is IMDb and "filmportal.de", neither of which are reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A supporting role should not be dismissed as a "bit part". "40 years ago" doesn't matter – once notable, always notable. And the book cited as a reference is held by 124 libraries worldwide, according to Worldcat. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A supporting role can be big or small, in this case clearly it's a smattering of unnotable "bit parts"–many of them uncredited. Not one of these. Really what's the point. Appearances doesn't = notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the four starring roles? Hardly "bit parts". RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"starring" without top billing in direct-to-video movies? Yeah ok. Trillfendi (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- + Three of the four films in the article including two prominent roles were cinema releases in Germany in the 1970s before video was invented Atlantic306 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Touche Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a simple check of the German language page for this person indicates that they are indeed notable and there is much room for expansion of the English language page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Airlines

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

Originally prodded with rationale of one-sentence stub, after which it was slightly expanded, but still not enough to pass notability per either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP as the single source does not seem substantial as it is only a simple database listing. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The size of an article is not a reason to nominate it for deletion, and has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not something is notable. Aside from which scheduled airlines are considered universally notable by consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the established consensus is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/Notability which state that : Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is sufficient, there is no specific threshold that can be used to automatically determine if an airline is notable or not. And I am not seeing that it does meet WP:NCORP in any way. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE, and hence fails WP:GNG. Aviation safety is a database, not RS, and even if it were RS does not give signficant coverage to the subject, and even if it were thought to give significant coverage, more than one source is required. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The text has been evidently created by an airline enthusiast and their efforts are, at least by me, applauded. But Wikipedia is not a depository or all-inclusive, random information. -The Gnome (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate coverage. May be recreated if more coverage (e.g. from local sources) can be found. feminist (talk) 05:37, 2 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 15:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KizlarSoruyor

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

This is the Turkish version of GirlsAskGuys, listed for deletion a little above. It isn't entirely clear to me which came first, but the notability is about equal for the two, and so is the promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination of this page for the deletion makes no sense. Notability is clear from the sources: :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). As long as the promotionalism is concerned, I have removed part of the content which could seem promotional, though they were just statistic of visitors. I am going to add more reliable links and one can guide me in improving the page. Thank you.Stangpa (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject seems notable from the sources, so rather than deleting the page, contents can be improvised. Mehmood.husayn (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We really need an assessment of the Turkish-language sources here to be able to decide either way in this case. FOARP (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The assessment clears the doubt that the subject has been discussed by the top media outlets in detail.

Let's start the assessment for the references.

Reference # 7 is the brand of American City Business Journals, The Business Journals and has been reported by a senior reporter of the business journal.
Reference # 8 is from one of the top media outlets of Turkey, Vatan.
Reference # 9, 12, 13 is from Milliyet, one of the oldest newspapers of Turkey.
Reference # 5 is also from a well-known newspaper in Turkey.

Besides, other references are also from renown outlets. There are thousand other references on the web which discuss the subject but the inclusion of all those will not be necessary, I think. Stangpa (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to have received WP:SIGCOV based on Stangpa's analysis of sources. I'm not surprised if the concept of a "girls ask guys" website turns out to be more popular in Turkey than in the United States, considering cultural differences. feminist (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on USER:Stangpa's analysis - thank you for your input. FOARP (talk) 15:19, 1 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) 07:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of majority minority Canadian federal electoral districts

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

List which imports a uniquely American political terminology into Canada, where it does not have the same applicability or relevance. "Majority minority" districts in the United States are a specific policy tool that is intentionally used to protect and/or gerrymander (depending on your perspective) minority representation in response to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and have even been the subject of Supreme Court cases to review their constitutionality -- so it's clearly possible to write a real, substantial article about majority-minority districts in the US, because reliable sources actually write about and analyze them as a thing. In Canada, however, it's true that demographic settlement patterns result a handful of electoral districts in the GTA and the GVRD happening to be "majority-minority", simply by virtue of the fact that Toronto and Vancouver are where a large proportion of Canada's visible minority population happens to be, but there are no active policy or legal rationales mandating their creation, they're not drawn that way on purpose to achieve any specific political objective, and no discernible controversy swirls around whether they should exist or not -- so instead of a real article about a reliably sourceable concept, this can never actually be anything more than a single-sourced list of demographic trivia.
As always, Canada does not always need to automatically have its own version of every single article that exists for American politics -- this is a concept which gets discussed and analysed as an actual civil rights matter by reliable sources in the United States, but doesn't have anything like the same meaning or relevance in Canada. So there's no need for Canada to mirror the American list just because it's technically possible to extract some numbers from census data, because the concept simply isn't applicable in Canada the way it is in the United States: it doesn't have the same meaning, purpose, impact, status, controversy or sourceability at all, and amounts to an original research attempt to reverse-engineer a topic that doesn't have any real-world context for it. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not a fan of even the US version of this list but at least there's a relevance to it. Perhaps a "Demographics of Canadian federal electoral districts" article could encompass a wider set of information, but having a list limited to these districts isn't very applicable. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be a pointless intersection. Number 5 7 08:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep the article . (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 15:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Villain Enterprises

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

Not notable, WP:TOOSOON, they have not been together long enough to be notable. If they disbanded tomorrow would it really matter? Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This stable has been together for nearly 1/2 a year and are two time champions in a top promotion; Ring of Honor. WP:ENTERTAINER states that they are considered notable if "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", OR "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", OR "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". An argument could be made for at least 2 out of 3 as they appeared on multiple ROH shows and live events, they have a large fan base per their merchandise sales, and they achieved the rare feat of getting the 2 top team championships in the company simultaneously. Ty.54 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - highly promoted stable in ROH, are current triple champions across 3 promotions (ROH Six-Man, NWA Tag Team, WSW Tag Team Champions), plus were ROH Tag Team Champions. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they have a lot of team accomplishments for a stand alone article. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In addition to my earlier comment; not only is this stable multi-time ROH champions and 2019 Tag Wars Champions. But since this consideration for deletion was made, they are now the new NWA tag team champions as well. So to answer your earlier question of "If they disbanded tomorrow would it really matter?", I think the obvious answer from any actual wrestling fan is YES. TY.54 (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. OK, technically speaking a redirect would also be appropriate but I can't tell where the redirect is supposed to point to. So delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (professional wrestling)

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

Non-notable team that has existed for 4 days. By far WP:TOOSOON Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing notable about this whatsoever. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Walter. Clearly not yet notable, the stable is like a week old. StaticVapor message me! 17:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Too Soon. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per too soon - with multiple reasonable redirect targets, a redirect would be unhelpful. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither of the four wrestlers' articles mention "Imperium", so a redirect would be unhelpful. feminist (talk) 05:32, 2 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) 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Axton

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

Local TV news broadcaster with hardly any RS, just profile pages. Although well known in the west country, he's probably notable anywhere else. If more RS can be found, article has scope to remain. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Broadcasters do not get an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie just because their own staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers verify that they exist — the notability test is the reception of substantive reliable source coverage in media outlets that don't sign his paycheque. The awards might be valid notability claims if they could be properly referenced as notable awards that get media coverage, but are still not instant "inherent notability" passes that would exempt him from actually having to have any reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO due to lack of WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 2 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 redirect to Sateri. There is certainly agreement that the page has to go, but not clear whether a merger, a redirect or a deletion is warranted. Going by middle road as there is no explicit consensus for any outcome other than for removing the page. Material may be merged over at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bracell Limited

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

Routine company. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 11:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - it's been long enough and sources haven't shown up. This is just press-release quality though - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Sateri in lieu of deletion. Sateri notes, "Sateri’s VSF operations were privatised and separated from the listed company[10] and was renamed Bracell Limited in February 2015.[11]" Cunard (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more comments and !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, I'm not sure how this has been relisted twice. No RS sources have been added and it fails WP:NCORP. Even if sources were added, it still appears to be an "advert" for a business. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would need a significant rewrite to not be an advertisement, not enough sources. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 12:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is weird to run a back-to-back Afd along with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sateri for parallel articles. According to the Hong Kong Companies Registry, Bracell Limited, a Bermuda-incorporated offshore company, which also "secondary" registered in Hong Kong as a listed company and holding company, was formerly known as "Sateri Holdings Limited". Since "Sateri" and "Bracell" are basically the same, i would say merge the two parallel articles (or turn to redirect and tag Template:Redirect with history or whatever relevant tag). I am undecided on which WP:article titles are more relevant. Since new official name of former listed company (after privatization), usually less commonly appeared in the media than the former official name (i.e. the former official name are WP:common name). I will comment the keep/deletion of the company on notability ground on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sateri instead. Matthew hk (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sateri per Matthew hk. It is notable as a former publicly traded company with annual revenue exceeding US$1 billion. -Zanhe (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sateri per Matthew hk and Zanhe Lubbad85 (☎) 13:06, 1 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) 15:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lourdes

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

Promotion for Non notable reality TV participant. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS and fails WP:BIO. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost certainly WP:UPE, and probably qualifies for WP:G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 2 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. May be restored if more good sources are found Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Presley Massara

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

Promotion for Non notable up and coming actor. Does not have Multiple significant roles in notable productions, The Pineville Heist would make one. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the actor. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON. Only single barely notable role, single GNG hit regarding that role (The West Australian, other hits are local rags or industry publications). No prejudice to recreation if his career should continue to grow into something notable. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete WP:TOOSOON. Some IRS coverage of single non trivial role (eg also Daily Telegraph to the West Aussi). Aoziwe (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator has removed the worst of the promotion [4]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glory (2007 film)

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

Promotion for Non notable short film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (the sole mention from the large pdf source 1 is " Her first film as a director, ‘Glory’ (2007), was also funded by Metro Screen, the AFC, and Screen Australia."). No sign of any reviews. Seems to have created to enhance the illusion of notability for a non notable actress. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 11:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 11:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Happy this passes WP:NFP. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the GNG: one source is connected to the subject, one is unreliable (IMDB) and one mentions the film in a single sentence only by name. Couldn't find any mentions of the film anywhere on Google. XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 12:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Coia

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

Lots of good information on this article, but not much to support it in the way of WP:RS. He was the first voice on Channel 4 so there is scope for an article if it can be improved. Otherwise, it doesn't meet WP:BIO - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be enough information to keep this article. Angryskies (talk) 12:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 11:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 11:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 11:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm concerned with the amount of sources from the BBC website but from a quick Google I FOUND plenty of unconnected ones that could be incorporated. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 13:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite a lot from BBC websites and his personal site. I've just checked out his wife's article (Debbie Greenwood). This is a different story all together. Another AfD? - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the first voice to be heard on a major TV channel is notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly fulfils WP:BASIC at the very least. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree there were issues with the article, especially the sources as noted above. However I would note that there would seem to have been edits today which have substantially reduced this problem and improved the article . Moreover, as argued above the subject of the article does seem to be notable, having been involved in national, as well as regional, television programmes. Likewise his being the first voice on Channel 4 and his on-screen appearances in its early days would to me seem notable. Dunarc (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mithun Rajakumar

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

Contested PROD: "Only one minor role in a notable film (having a wikipedia article) and the upcoming film is a music video so passing WP:NACTOR is doubtful." CoolSkittle (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vannacharal which details the history of the article in short and involves the author. CoolSkittle (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thanks for taking this to AFD, when I did the prod and checked up on the roles I found one short film without a Wikipedia article, one minor role in a notable film (having a Wikipedia article) and the upcoming film that has been in the works for three years is actually a music video so WP:NACTOR is not passed at this stage of his career. There is not much coverage and what there is is a case of WP:Not inherited, plus there are problems of coi editing and sockpuppetry, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons. Not enough to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The COI / promotional editing is pretty obvious on this article which isn't helping. Ravensfire (talk) 13:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The H8 Club

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

Non notable independent wrestling tag team/stable Moab12 (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything I am finding is WP:ROUTINE - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's the problem with this articles. During the new era, a lot of indy promotions appeared and several articles were created. The problem, most of this wrestlers who worked in, at the time, minor promotion, has no coverage outside wrestling. I think that H8 Club is no notable since there is only ROUTINE. There is no article about them outside the regular coverage. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a G12. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hazrat Khawaja Syed Muhammed Mateen Chishti Mahbubi (R.A)

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

Hard to search correctly (variations of the name), but I couldn't find reliable indepth sources to establish notability. Fram (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G12) as its a copyvio of this. Mccapra (talk) 12:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vocal Europe

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

Recent "think tank" or "lobby group" which hasn't received sufficient attention yet. Quoted in two articles, very few other sources. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some interview quotes and passing mentions show that the think tank got some attention in recent months and years, for example with statements about Turkey-related topics. But I couldn't find any substantial in-depth coverage about the organization and its activities to establish notability. Seems too soon - of course a new draft could be created later if additional in-depth sources become available. GermanJoe (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG, as source(s) fail of WP:ORGCRIT. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Strippel

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD with no improvements. -- BlameRuiner (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with no prejudice to recreation if (when) she plays a first team league match for Bristol City. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global Data Intelligence Limited

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies: sources are either passing mentions, press releases, unreliable sources or indiscriminate database profiles. (PROD contested by creator) – Teratix ₵ 10:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tera Thank you for your effort. I consider that Global Data Intelligence Limited article should not be deleted, because as I mentioned on Talk:Global_Data_Intelligence_Limited&actionTalk:Global_Data_Intelligence_Limited I had a deep analysis related to b2b database providers, being inspired by businesses as LeadGenius, InsideView,ZoomInfo and others big similar companies, trying to write a unique content and find valuable reference links. Moreover, I found many external sources but I do not know which are valuable for Wikipedia articles. I consider, that companies which work with global customers like Microsoft, CISCO, DHL and many more, need to have Wikipedia page, to avoid misunderstanding between companies and clients perception. I agree with Tera related to unreliable sources, it's my mistake, maybe I did not search enough for them. I still hope that this page will not be deleted and count on your help.

Thank you all for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymemore (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned you found "many external sources" but you don't know which ones are useful for articles. Have you found any sources that are not currently cited in the article? – Teratix ₵ 12:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is a huge list, when I search like their trading name Global Database, I find many referral links, but I do not know which are a good one. I gave the name Global Data Intelligence Limited because this is a legal name, thinking that this is more correct. How do you think, Tera? Because on google exist too many sources concerning Global Database search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymemore (talk • contribs) 12:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently written. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. @Trymemore: You say that you have many sources, I would suggest reading WP:RS and trying to identify sources of in-depth coverage (more than a few sentences) from reliable sources (such as news organizations with reputation for accuracy). shoy (reactions) 14:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also see WP:Teahouse#Follow-up to Review my first created business page. –84.46.52.26 (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile archived, how about closing this as "move back to draft", and let Trymemore sort their references for some time? @Trymemore: There's a timeout for drafts if nothing happens, IIRC after six months a draft with no edits/submission can be deleted. –84.46.53.12 (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see at least one good reference before !voting to draftify. – Teratix ₵ 23:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me too. The BuzzFeed source (yellow on RS/P) isn't obviously bad, D&B Hoovers exists, and the article lists Dun & Bradstreet as competitor. –84.46.53.12 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Buzzfeed source is unusable – it's written by a "community contributor" i.e. no editorial oversight. I'm not sure what you mean by "D&B Hoovers exists", or the relevance of listing Dun & Bradstreet as a competitor. – Teratix ₵ 02:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content isn't obviously bogus, Buzzfeed D&B Hoovers is on topic and matches Dun & Bradstreet on the article discussed here. BTW, your opinion about this source needs a red (not only yellow) on RS/P, I'm too lazy to suggest that on the RS/P talk page, I'm hunting TMZ and some others, not including Buzzfeed so far. –84.46.52.129 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzfeed's editorial content might merit a yellow (I've never encountered it) but content contributed by a random person on the Internet, not vetted by editors, simply can't be used in an article. The existence of articles on a similar company doesn't imply all companies of type are notable. – Teratix ₵ 23:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OT, there's a green BuzzFeed News below WP:RS/P#BuzzFeed. –84.46.52.129 (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This means that you can move to draft until will not find more reliable sources?
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. None of the sources in the article are usable. They're either not WP:RS, or directory listings, or just passing mentions in articles about other topics. Possibly WP:G11 worthy. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears written as advertising. The possible reason why reliable independent sources haven't been found is that there doesn't appear to be any and I went through two pages on a search. @Trymemore: Thanks for the contributions but on this one I don't see that there is anything. If it was drafted I don't think sources could be found to provide a HEY. Otr500 (talk) 20:16, 2 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 close. Per this discussion, there appears to be a consensus to merge the article to Facebook. The merge discussion has run for over a month and is now awaiting a formal close. This deletion nomination is pointless given the mentioned consensus to merge, and likewise is unlikely to pass. Therefore, I am closing it per SNOW in order to allow the merge process run its course. (non-admin closure) — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caryn Marooney

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

Possibly non notable and was created by a paid editor per https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 Abote2 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as redirect/merge There was just a well participated discussion where that was the consensus. It has been posted for closure and no one has done that but it seems clear that there is already consensus behind that WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The rewrite during the AfD has added additional sources of a non-routine nature that show GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Dunlop

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

He fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league. GNG is failed also. Source 1 is a blog of unknown reliability and source 2 is a Questia article that I can't read the whole of but doesn't look like it will provide significant coverage of Dunlop. Dougal18 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no WP:BEFORE search completed here, I assume. He was one of the best players in a semi-professional league for an entire decade, and as such, plenty has been written about him. [5] [6] [7] Since his career ended 20 years ago, I'm having difficulty finding significant coverage from the 1990's, but a simple web search shows he still gets talked about to this day on "best of all time" lists. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete – not crossing the GNG bar for me.~~ Belfast Telegraph is more about the team than about the player. I can't access the full Sunday Mirror, but it gives no indication of being SIGCOV of the player. Over the Turnstile is a blog, not an RS. This BBC article doesn't really focus on the player that much. Leaving this BBC article as the only thing I would call WP:SIGCOV, and it's shortness makes it very, very marginal for me. What that leaves us with is not enough material from which to write a decent article, especially for a BLP. BTW the player is now a minister [8]. Leviv ich 01:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that assumes that's everything that's been written about him. [9] [10] He had a testimonial against a Premier League team!! SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing my !vote to keep following new sources shared by SportingFlyer and article re-write. The additional Belfast Telegraph articles, plus BBC, provides enough sigcov for notability and WP:42. Leviv ich 00:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It's a WP:COPYVIO. Wonder if it's salvageable. I've notified the article creator. [11] SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article and added a number of citations, which I wouldn't have done if I thought this should be deleted. Still think this is a clear keep, it'd be upsetting if someone who played a single league game in England would be able to have an article but a player who dominated his local league for a decade and appeared in several European matches would be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO widely recognized contribution and award... "Northern Ireland PFA Player of the Year and Football Writer's Premier League Team of the Year Award".. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zabinski

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

Our article says he played 21 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2008 and 2010 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 4 games in 2010). ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't have lineups for American leagues prior to ~2009; therefore, the 21 games is correct (see the Riverhounds to back up the other 16 games), and that is much more than a marginal WP:NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). This particular player retired after a short stint in order to become a golf caddie per his LinkedIn (unfortunately - actual independent RSes don't exist). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he passes GNG. That is the threhold, not the arbitrary trolling inclusion cretiera that has lead to half of all Wikipedia biographies being on footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How? Leviv ich 14:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't care if he passes WP:NFOOTY or not. SNGs are subservient (with the exception of PROF) to GNG. They are meant to be a quick rule of thumb for probable notability. Passing them does not guarantee GNG passage. I do not see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, therefore he's not notable. Simple as that. SITH (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated rationale by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not at all "clear" that the player meets NFOOTY, and there does not seem to be any coverage outside of comprehensive player databases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recent AfDs of USL Second Division players that have been closed as delete (by four different admins): Jason Stenta, Eric Loyd, Nate Jafta, Nick Bochette. Leviv ich 14:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Brown

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

Our article says he played 7 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This meets NFOOTBALL, per the guideline could be kept. This is because he played in a league that is considered fully professional, and so it is presumed sources must exist. But in reality, this league gets no significant coverage, so should we follow this circular reasoning of a flawed guideline? I can't hold my nose hard enough to keep the smell out, so I will not vote to keep.Jacona (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona: The guideline merely creates a presumption of notability - it actually states (at the top of NSPORTS) - "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. ..... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind ...". Furthermore, while NFOOTY says " See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." - that "see a" doesn't not confer policy status on WP:FPL - which is an essay (and unlike NSPORTS - which I think would generally require a community RfC with wide participation to update - is updated on a much looser local consensus). Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet NFOOTY nor any other applicable guideline.Jacona (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of substantive sources to pass GNG. Reywas92^Talk 05:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and the updated rationale by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he meets NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on how it meets NFOOTY? Leviv ich 05:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SITH. As contemporary footballers in an English speaking country, the lack of available sources override any presumption of notability from playing in a semi-professional league. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Zobre

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

Our article says he played 24 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2008–2010 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 7 games in 2009). ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't have lineups for American leagues prior to ~2009; therefore, the 24 games is correct, and that is much more than a marginal WP:NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. The Pioneers dropped to the not-FPL PDL in 2010, and regardless per the non-reliable sources (soccerway, socerstats) covering this stint - he was utilized as a sub in these games. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the leagues this player played in are on the WP:FPL list. How does this article meet NFOOTY? Leviv ich 05:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a contemporary American footballer, the absolute dearth of viable sources outweighs any presumption of notability afforded by the fact that he played in a semi-professional league. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Langton

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

Our article says he played 11 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 9 games). ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't cover American leagues prior to ~2009, so the 11 appearances are correct (see the Riverhounds to back up the total), and that is much more than a marginal NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Per our player himself - LinkedIn - he worked as an associate in accounting firm PwC (Sep 2008-Jul 2011) concurrent to his time with the Riverhounds - in Apr 2008-Aug 2009. From Aug 2009 he was only with PwC (seems he moved from Pittsburgh to NYC as well). As such, this refutes the notion that USL D2 was a fully-professional league as this player was very clearly semi-professional. Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: - a source showing he was semi-professional (worked as an accountant at PwC). As he was semi-pro, clearly the league itself (with other semi-pros as well) was not fully professional. How does he meet NFOOTY (which stipulates "fully professional") then? Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: please do not @ me at every single AFD ok thanks. Giant Snowman 08:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. I did in AfDs where you asserted a rationale clearly contradicted by sourcing provided - in this case - the subject was clearly a semi-professional. Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and in all three, the player has played in a WP:FPL, as confirmed by the nominator. I respectfully suggest you both spend more time deleting articles which clearly don't meet NFOOTBALL as opposed to going after those that do. It makes no sense. Giant Snowman 08:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the player himself (permissible per WP:ABOUTSELF) - [LinkedIn - he was semi-pro, working as an accountant concurrent with his stint on the team. WP:FPL is an essay, not policy. WP:NFOOTY is a notability guideline - and in this case even the presumption of notability isn't met when the player himself asserts he working as an accountant and thus wasn't fully-professional. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly we need to scap this league from fully pro listing since people were working as accountants and playing games on the side. It is also time to come up with better inclusion creteria for footballers so we do not have half the articles on Wikipedia be on footballers any more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: again, I have done a Google Search and an offline source search for Langton and I do not see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, therefore he fails WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTY is only supposed to be a guide which predicts the likelihood of passing WP:GNG. When source searches can be done, WP:GNG is preferable. SITH (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a side job doesn't prove the league is semi-professional. Even some MLS players have side jobs while making six figures. Meets WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY Not sure why an Afd this subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are there any sources that say USL Second Division was a fully-professional league? (Also, accounting is not a "side job", it's a profession, for which a bachelor's degree, a professional examination, and licensure is required.) Leviv ich 21:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't prove he wasn't doing it part time on the side. Russell Canouse, a professional athlete making six figures in a fully professional league, just got a side job as a realtor, which also requires a professional examination and a license. The source doesn't prove he was a full-time accountant who played soccer on the side as opposed to being a full-time soccer player who works as an accountant on the side. And we had sources saying it was professional before, but apparently that wasn't good enough for some people because someone's LinkedIn said something ambiguous and so we had to delete it apparently. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Realtor ≠ accountant. You don't need a bachelor's degree to get a real estate license. That's a big difference, like a 4-year, $200,000 difference. Accountant is in the same group as architect, engineer, etc. It's unlikely that someone would spend 4 years of school and like a quarter of a million dollars and then go work part-time as an accountant.

But this guy, Matt Langton, according to his LinkedIn, was working at PriceWaterhouseCoopers as an accounting associate at the same time as he was playing football. That's like the largest or one of the largest accounting companies in the world. Accounting majors would kill to get that job, it's got to be one of the most prestigious entry-level positions for an accountant. Not impossible, but not likely this was a part-time gig. $200k, 4 years of schooling, get the accountants license, get hired by one of the top firms in the world... and you're going to go part time so you can play in the third-division USL Second League? After he stopped playing football, he became a Senior Associate at PwC. Then a Fund Accountant, then an Accounting Manager. All indications suggest he is an accountant by profession, not a football player.

He's not the only one in the USL Second Division that had an obvious full-time job while playing. There was a discussion about this at WT:FPL#Status of US minor leagues with other examples. You participated in it, as did several other editors. Multiple sources were examined. You brought up the same example. But just because there's a guy in the MLS that's a realtor doesn't prove that USL Second Division was professional. We have sources showing it's not fully professional. We have no sources, so far, showing it is fully professional. I'm surprised it's like.. "Keep per NFOOTY" *league removed by consensus from FPL* "Still keep per NFOOTY". Leviv ich 01:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Working as an accountant was not a "side job". Being a footballer for a few months was - he continued working at PwC after his short stint in the not fully professiinal USL D2 - including moving to New York and advancing in the ranks in PwC. Minor leagues in the US have very little coverage (less than college football) and are used for tryouts from college - many of whom are thinking of other careers.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about a soccer player who played only 11 matches in the third-tier US league (This suggests the club was not fully professional prior to building its own stadium - long after Langton had left the club - as it used high school stadia and averaged no more than 1,000 spectators per game). I'm confused by his LinkedIn profile as it is my experience with public accounting firms like PwC that "moonlighting" is strictly prohibited for almost all employees - meaning you cannot be a salaried employee for another firm while you work there. Perhaps he took a leave of absence to play soccer, or perhaps he was an unpaid trainee, but the idea that he would have been playing professional soccer and working as an accountant at PwC at the same time doesn't seem plausible. As far as meeting the GNG, we have very little in non-routine coverage (This and thisare hardly in-depth coverage). Jogurney (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The games - per soccerway - were all on Sunday and Saturday. 5 were at home. The 4 away games - 2 in Maryland, 1 in Harrisburg, and 1 in Richmond are all in driving distance from Pittsburgh. Working for a different accounting firm or as an accountant elsewhere is obviously a no-no in terms of non-compete and confidentiality at a major accounting firm - but playing soccer on the weekend? The overlap is also at the beginning of his term in PwC - so it might've been a trainee/internship later promoted to full-time there. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of meeting any notability guideline. No coverage in newspaper archives. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recent AfDs of USL Second Division players that have been closed as delete (by four different admins): Jason Stenta, Eric Loyd, Nate Jafta, Nick Bochette. Leviv ich 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Feazell

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

Our article says he played 11 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2008 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list it just needs to be updated. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – clearly passes WP:NFOOTY, this feels like a case of WP:DINC more than anything. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources from this time period are available online) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've just realised the past two AfDs I have voted on are all nominated by the same person with the same rationale, so I have completed a source search for all of them (Feazell, Townsend, Tyrie, Reinberg, Clark and Brown). None of them have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. As WP:NSPORTS, the parent guideline of WP:NFOOTY, is subservient to WP:GNG, whether they meet one of the criteria at WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant. SITH (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is WP:NFOOTY develop the bio, WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the change in status for the USL Second Division, how does he meet WP:NFOOTY? Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After the reassessment of the USL Second Division as not being fully professional, he does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Coverage isn't close to meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recent AfDs of USL Second Division players that have been closed as delete, by four different admins: Jason Stenta, Eric Loyd, Nate Jafta, Nick Bochette. Leviv ich 06:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Townsend

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

Our article says he played 39 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2007–2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 14 games in 2009). ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – clearly meets WP:NFOOTY (39 games?!?!) Soccerway doesn't cover American leagues prior to ~2009, so the total of 39 games is correct, which is much more than a marginal WP:NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, per reasoning above. /Julle (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). According to www.soccer-elite.co.uk - he has since moved to on training for soccer-elite coupled with some semi-pro play. Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources from this time period are available online) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the change in status for the USL Second Division, how does he meet WP:NFOOTY? Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After the reassessment of the USL Second Division as not being fully professional, he does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Coverage is typical sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete He Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 09:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recent AfDs of USL Second Division players that have been closed as delete, by four different admins: Jason Stenta, Eric Loyd, Nate Jafta, Nick Bochette. Leviv ich 06:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clark (footballer, born 1984)

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

Not to be confused with other footballers with the same name. Our article says the Ben Clark born in 1984 played 38 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2008–2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 20 games in 2009). ~~Other than that,~~ apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. PS it would be nice if the nominator notified article creators about AFDs... Giant Snowman 19:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, of course I did. I use Twinkle. Leviv ich 21:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues is merely an essay, with no policy standing for notability. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 38 games is a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't cover American leagues before ~2009, and thus the total of 38 is correct. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reliable source supporting 38 games? Leviv ich 23:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This link gives him 18 games and 1 goal, to add to the 20 games shown on Soccerway. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Twenty games would have been enough too. /Julle (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professional (holding additional jobs - several such examples can be provided). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a clear pass of WP:NFOOTBALL Although the article needs a lot of work, AfD is not cleanup Lubbad85 (☎) 20:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does it still pass NFOOTY if USL 2nd Div wasn't fully professional? Leviv ich 03:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of article subject meeting WP:GNG Hack (talk) 08:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Recent AfDs of USL Second Division players that have been closed as delete, by four different admins: Jason Stenta, Eric Loyd, Nate Jafta, Nick Bochette. Leviv ich 06:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merrimack Valley Conference

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

Fails WP:GNG, no third party sources. Page was previously deleted per WP:PROD and then restored without rationale for restoration. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this ESPN article on the conference, but no other secondary sources. If other secondary sources should be found I'd most likely vote keep, all member schools have pages. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Zachariassen

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

Not important enough as an actor. A couple of minor roles in films many years apart. And, in addition: "a small role in Hotel Cæsar in season 19 or 20". Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just having roles mentioned in credits does not make someone notable. They need to be significant in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator, couldn't find reliable sources 9H48F (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her role in Kule kidz gråter ikke was certainly significant - she was nominated for best supporting actress for it. [12], [13] (yes, both of those just list her name, but do show the significance of that role). Her role in Luftens Helter was also significant (see the Norwegian Wikipedia article [14], and here [15]). There is no English Wikipedia article about that sitcom yet, but that does not mean that the significant coverage which would show its notability does not exist. Her role in Kvinnen i mitt liv also looks significant. Given that articles about those don't yet exist on English Wikipedia, though, it would be hard to show that she was notable. (I agree that the inclusion in the article of the words "a small role in Hotel Cæsar in season 19 or 20" certainly doesn't help a claim to notability, but it doesn't necessarily mean she's not, it just means it's badly presented.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply no evidence of notability as an actress. Trillfendi (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The only comment noted the possibility of off line sources, but thus far none have materialized. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Barsdorf

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

Declined PROD. Rationale was Likely ineligible for A7 due to the credible claim of significance, however, source searches do not turn up the requisite depth of coverage for it to be considered notable. Google, WorldCat and JSTOR searches in both English and German turn up little in the way of significant coverage and while it has since been improved I feel the original PROD rationale still applies. SITH (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks like a very interesting publisher, from the titles of the books they published (on topics including erotica, magic, the evil eye, crime fiction, etc). It seems that they were based in Leipzig in the second half of the 19th century, then in Berlin in the first half of the 20th century. German Wikipedia has redlinks for this publisher's name in a couple of articles, but no article yet. I think this is a subject which requires access to resources which are not online, and probably not in English either (though I have searched under "Verlag Hermann Barsdorf", "Hermann Barsdorf Verlag" and "Barsdorf Verlag", I think there probably aren't enough digitised sources in German yet). I will try searching in digitised German newspapers, although those which are online only cover a few years of the 20th century ..... Wuapinmon, sources do not need to be in English, so if you do have sources in other languages, please add them! RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, delete vote withdrawn, per presumed notability at WP:NFOOTBALL. (non-admin closure) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aboubacar Keita

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

Player has yet to make his professional debut, thus failing WP:NFOOTY, and also does not meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by article creator without providing a reason. 21.colinthompson (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw – as nominator, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Keita made his debut for Richmond today, thus meeting WP:NFOOTY, and I'm working on rewriting the page to confirm that he also meets WP:GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing the AfD as "withdrawn" will not be possible unless GiantSnowman agrees. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@21.colinthompson and ToBeFree: I'm happy for this to be closed as 'withdrawn' given that he has now made his debut. Giant Snowman 08:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DAS Collection

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

Not very notable Rathfelder (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Triadis

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

The only claim for notability is 16 games in German 3 Liga (Wiesbaden reserve team), but it is unsourced, and I was not able to find sources myself (except for LinkedIn, where different years are stated). May be someone else could have more luck with the sources. Many other details, such as nationality, are not sourced either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTY. Note that the German 3 Liga play, if actually verifiable and professional, would've nuked his NCAA eligibility AFAIK - and given he's currently in the NCAA - this needs a strong source given this is a BLP. I'd hazard a guess that it probably was on the youth squad (which I see on a non-RS Facebook page).
Delete He never played in 3.Liga. He played in the Oberliga with the Wehen Weisbaden II reserve team. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Hasn't even played professional football, he played for a reserve side, and all the following clubs have either been non-league or within the US College/University leagues, which do not fall under the guise of "Professional Football". If anything, I'd say, shift it into Draftspace, and see where it goes from there. There could be potential in him going to a Professional Football team, and if he makes an appearance for them, then, it can be moved from Draftspace. Cheesy McGee (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Drafts are only kept 6 months and there is no indication that this college soccer player will become notable in the next six months. Leviv ich 03:47, 1 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. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Tyrie

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

Our article says he played 15 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 14 games). ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – 15 appearances in a WP:FPL is a clear WP:NFOOTY pass. On a side note, if the nom thinks that the page incorrectly states the number of appearances, they are free to change that number as per their sources. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Per our player himself - LinkedIn - he began working in Whitecap Technologies in June 2009 - concurrent with 8 of his games for the Pioneers per Soccerway.[16] (the Pioneers themselves self-relegated to the non-pro PDL in the following 2010 seasons), Tyrie (per himself) continued his business career after 2009. As such, this refutes the notion that USL D2 was a fully-professional league as this player was very clearly semi-professional. Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: what's really relevant is sources for GNG, however - how does he pass WP:NFOOTBALL? A source has been provided above showing that he was semi-professional during his brief stint in the Pioneers - as such - he was not a fully-professional league, per his own (and other semi-pros) participation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our absurdly low inclusion criteria for footballers. Was never fully pro.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject passes WP:NFOOTY the article should be developed. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does this meet NFOOTY? What sources are there saying the league(s) he played in were fully-professional? Leviv ich 05:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Reinberg

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

Our article says he played 16 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – 16 appearances is a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. Although this page needs some cleaning up, WP:DINC. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professional (holding additional jobs).Per our subject's LinkdIn he spent 6 months with the Islanders after college prior to pursuing a JD in law (he has since become an attorney). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this article meet NFOOTY? Leviv ich 03:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Party of the United States

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

Article does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Having elected officials is not a requirement. The page has enough information so that it isn't useless. Jon698 13:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jon698, you've been here long enough to know that the fact that the page contains information has no relevance to whether we should keep the page unless that information comes from independent, reliable sources, which is not true of any of the pages cited in the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Jon is correct in pointing out that having elected officials is not a requirement for an article on a political party. The party was cited in this book on the U.S. political scene [17] and in this news article [18], so there has been some coverage. I think a more vigorous rewrite would help the article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do either of those sources qualify as significant, non-trivial coverage? I don’t think so. Simply saying an organization exists is not evidence of notability. Toa Nidhiki05 17:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree with your observation. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that the party is also discussed in this news article. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article is SIGCOV, as is the book cited by Capt. Milokan.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per IAR. I favor the inclusion of all articles about political parties of confirmed existence, their youth sections, and their leaders. This is the sort of information that our readers have the right to expect in a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. That no such formal special notability guideline exists should not be allowed to impair our efforts to build and maintain the best encyclopedia possible. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand you’re saying IAR, but the fact something exists does not make it notable. It needs significant, non-trivial coverage and this doesn’t have that. Non-trivial political parties don’t add value. Toa Nidhiki05 19:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in any WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per User:Capt. Milokan's sources. Additionally, under their old name of "The New American Independent Party" they had some coverage: 1 2 FOARP (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by User:Capt. Milokan and my own searches. In a news archive search I found articles including:

Rye man wants third party on ballotsCunningham, Geoff, Jr. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington [Washington]13 Mar 2010. ...--PORTSMOUTH -- Steven Borne is sure that his hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty... ...the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty is dedicated to a political platform......go to the voting booth, so he wants to get the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty...
Rye man: Write me in for governor Schoenberg, Shira. Concord Monitor; Concord, N.H. [Concord, N.H]21 Oct 2010. ...trying to get the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty on the New Hampshire ballot...
Alternative debate has its own issues Ross, Janell. The Tennessean; Nashville, Tenn. [Nashville, Tenn]07 Oct 2008....hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty, The Constitution Party's Castle and The...
Jay Miller: Minor parties kept off ballot Anonymous. Carlsbad Current - Argus; Carlsbad, N.M. [Carlsbad, N.M]03 July 2010....the hitNew hitAmerican hitIndependent hitParty. And no, a candidate cannot...E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as GNG per sources found by User:Capt. Milokan Lubbad85 (☎) 19:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as regards notability per NORG/GNG via the additional sources found above. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:13, 1 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sebastian Church, Paralikkunnu

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

non-notable church, it just happens to be "a church" in the page creator's village Daiyusha (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Added two more references; This appears to be a pilgrimage destination and one of the oldest churches in the area; added two more third-party references.~~ It is mentioned in a list of 10 tourist attraction churches in the area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: you might want to look again the sources and the article,you are getting confused between two different churches of the same name, just look at the image in the article,this church doesn't look remotely historic, and is not mentioned in the 2 new sources. Your sources speak about this church : St. Andrew's Basilica, Arthunkal. Daiyusha (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I mixed them up.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: you might want to strike off your previous keep or edit it. Daiyusha (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for reliable sources for this church is heavily complicated by there being an enormous quantity of St. Sebastian churches in India. That said, after digging around for quite some time I was unable to find anything in reliable sources about this church except that someone famous may have been married there. Notability isn't inherited because someone famous happened to get married there. Nothing I can find supports any notability of this church. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 20 April 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) 05:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. From the references in the article, Travel Triangle reference is a blog (it is a "holiday marketplace") so it is not a reliable source (and thus Epiphyllumlover's argument is not valid), and there is a passing mention in a police station entry. Was not able to find anything in my searches. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Euwyn Poon

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

Non-notable individual. There is substantial coverage of the company he founded, but not about him as an individual. I suggest this should be redirected to Spin (company). SmartSE (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spin (company). The sources definitely provide notability to the company but not himself. Meszzy² (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources addressing the notability of the individual have been added. These are in line with other sources that assert the notability of other entrepreneurs; more can be added.Samefox8 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see sources about the company but not about the individual himself. Meszzy² (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tech in Asia piece at https://www.techinasia.com/asian-values-american-dream-ford-spent-100m-singaporeanfounded-scooter-startup seems to address this. It'd be helpful to see an example of a piece about an entrepreneur completely disassociated with the prominent company he founded. Samefox8 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be completely disassociated with the company, the question here however is in terms of notability - is the individual notable enough for his own page? We usually show notability by the presence of secondary sources with the individual being the subject of that source as it shows that a news organization has dedicated editorial resources to reporting on that individual, meaning that the individual is of public interest. The problem with this individual in my view is that the sources are simply due to public interest in the company, but not the individual themselves. I cannot view the article you linked as its behind a paywall, but it does look like it is about this individual. However, it would seem to me that just one secondary source is not enough to prove notability for an entire article. WP:GNG does state that "multiple [secondary] sources are generally expected." In my opinion the only thing of public interest regarding this individual is the company, not really himself, whereas for a more notable entrepreneur, their birthday or where they went to school for example is of public interest, along with other aspects about them, which is why they receive their own article. This public interest is usually shown by an article meeting the requirements in WP:GNG, or more specifically for people WP:BASIC. Meszzy² (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. There are multiple secondary sources, though some are behind paywall (TechInAsia and ^[1]) and some are podcasts ^[2]^[3]. Will return to this discussion with more sources. Samefox8 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.businessinsider.com/spin-scooter-ceo-college-campuses-key-beating-lime-bird-2019-3
^ https://radiopublic.com/the-unconventional-path-entrepren-WoA9wx/ep/s1!1bc15
^ https://businessradio.wharton.upenn.edu/episodes/launch-pad-august-2-2017/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 16 April 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) 05:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources added by editors since the AfD, and looking at overall notability reqs, I think the subject passes WP:GNG at the least. Skirts⁸⁹ 08:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Skirts89: No sources have been added since this began. Which sources do you think mean that GNG is met? The business insider article is about the company, not him personally. Being featured on random podcasts does not confer notability. @Meszzy2: did you look at the most recent links provided? SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Meszzy2: Hi, I meant the sources added in this discussion above. TechInAsia is a reliable secondary source which I think indicates notability. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO making a widely recognized contribution in his field WP:NOTPAPER. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Zimmerman

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

County-level judge who fails WP:GNG and WP:JUDGE. GPL93 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources I have just added to the article. Zimmerman may not pass WP:JUDGE, but he seems to pass WP:GNG. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I am not sure this meets GNG. All judges make rulings. There are not really stories focussed on his biographical history. The story about refusing to work in unsafe conditions is probably a WP:BLP1E.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Run-of-the-mill local judge, does not meet WP:GNG, even with references added since the AFD began. It's simple news coverage of cases where he presided, which is exactly what you'd get with a RotM judge; and he complained about lack of security in the courts, leading him to be reassigned to another court. No notability here. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject seems to lack notability. I can circle back to see if anything gets GNG'd Lubbad85 (☎) 21:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Jones (activist)

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

Non notable activist. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is hard to put in a particular box. The article has a bit of an incoherent assertion of notability. Is he an author? Activist? Journalist? Poet? Academic? Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ENT, so he would need a strong GNG to counter that. He does pass GNG but not for any of the above - it's for riding his bike across Australia with his family, living off roadkill. On balance I think WP:NOTNEWS applies - it's one of those "man bites dog" type stories that is sure to get clicks but inherently non-notable. Also potentially WP:TOOSOON - if his environmental philosophy gains more exposure in future, he may well become notable. But not yet. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much of the sourcing is PRIMARY, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON on what I can see. No real NSUBJECT, and no standout sustained general coverage or aggregated coverage yet. Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley Storm

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

Article deleted from PROD then restored with no rationale for restoration. Organization does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability standard I can find. Sources in article violate WP:COI and appears to have WP:ADV issues as well. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is WP:GNG. in addition I add WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide examples of WP:GNG and explain how WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here. Otherwise, your comments are not a reason, just a vote. AFD is a discussion, not a ballot.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - My WP:BEFORE turned up multiple mentions of this team online in news articles ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ). This includes regional/state-level publications (the NJ Herald, The NY Daily News, PennLive). A lot of this is match reports which do not feature a great deal of information about the team, but I think there's enough in aggregate to just get this semi-professional team over the bar for notability per WP:ORG. FOARP (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Shift into draftspace, not quite enough notability/sources to warrant a Wikipedia page at this moment in time. Cheesy McGee (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a review of FOARP's sources. SportingFlyer T·C 17:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Angelas

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

Very short, unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone added sources. One a lengthy review from Film Threat, the other isn't about the film rather the festival it appeared in. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This smells a little of copyvio but I short search didn't turn up anything. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage in reliable sources such as FilmThreat and other reviews shown here Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Soft delete - this is a new film (2019) so it may take some time to build a reputation - I don't think it meets WP:NFILM right now, but it could in the future - Epinoia (talk) 00:01, 1 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MBillionth Award South Asia

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

This award on its own doesn't seem to be notable. All the articles here are about a single individual or a company winning it. The main focus of the article ,in all cases,is the recipient. Not to mention just few sources which can be considered reliable or independent. Daiyusha (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is kept after discussion, is receiving this award enough criteria for a page to be created about a company?? Daiyusha (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is true that the focus of the individual source articles is whoever won the award, but most of the titles of these articles specifically use "won the MBillionth award" as a hook. That to me seems to be a reasonable indication of notability. - Re Daiyusha's question above: I don't think that works backwards... winning one award is rarely enough to satifsy notability on its own outside the really prestigious and selective class of awards. --16:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable topics are the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Being mentioned in the title is neither here nor there. – Joe (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Joe has this exactly right, it the absence of substantial treatment by reliable sources there is no showing of notability, and no basis for the article. Arguing otherwise would lead to a walled garden. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:49, 1 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash

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

Not notable general aviation accident. That some media outlets got the story wrong doesn't make this notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be a particularly noteoworthy crash, certainly doesnt justify a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a Cessna crashing into a lake is indeed on its own not very notable. However the surrounding media coverage imo can be regarded as significant give it was widely covered internationally for a considerable period. While media probably overhyped aspects of it, the “scare” was confirmed by authorities who monitored nuclear contamination throughout. So this makes it stand out from ordinary light aircraft accidents. As far as notability for events is concerned, the case expands to the present with reflections and reviews or is being cited in connection with eg other crashes in the region or wider issues such as border disputes in the lake. Those refs have been added now. This goes beyond “media getting it wrong”. Gng does not require the coverage at the time to have been correct. It can be classified to have been at best knowledge at the time. Recent coverage puts this into perspective. As such it should pass gng and event. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bit beyond "media getting this wrong" (seems authorities got it wrong?) - this was a major nuclear scare. It had very wide international coverage around the event. Some of the sources in the article - [19][20][21][22][23] - are written well after the event and some are in-depth - showing this meets WP:NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an easy keep. Coverage in major news sources like ARD for an extended period of time. FOARP (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive and widespread overage. It does not matter if the notability was because of an unfounded fear of a possible nuclear incident. Meters (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy WP:GNG pass, even if the article itself needs a copy edit. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'"Keep A notable accident. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 08:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Management

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

No significant coverage, even under this company's former name, Heroic Records. All coverage found has mostly been about artists affiliated with this label or sublabels of it. Existing sources on the article are either self-published or unreliable. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found a few instances of 'heroic management' in the books but no indication that 'Heroic Management' is a thing of importance. Fails both WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Thanks for the nomination, JalenFolf! gidonb (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE - article was created by a single purpose account - Epinoia (talk) 23:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in music

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

Text and sources are a patchwork, with no particular source talking about the main topic. The article violates WP:SYNTH, drawing unstated conclusions out of multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article appears to be very superficial coverage of a topic that I would have expected that Wikipedia might already cover in other articles, although I'm not sure which articles those would be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this garbage. Trillfendi (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no main topic, these topics are irrelevant, and would need to be discussed by actual researchers or professionals to have any meaning. Naddruf (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep the article but it could be merged with the main Article about Music.Forest90 (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Gimubrc (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Unfinished article with no lead and empty sections. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is an example of a clearly notable topic with a very poor article. The fact that an article is bad is not an actual reason for deletion, this is a topic with tons of coverage and I think it should have an article, but not this version of it.★Trekker (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wilson-Foley

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

Unsuccessful political candidate who otherwise isn't notable. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "White-collar criminal" in the lead is already a red flag per BLP, and most of the sources appear to be about that. Delete John M Wolfson (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete what does it tell you when entire sections sit there empty? Trillfendi (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It tells you that the editor was on a standard West Coast USA sleep schedule and added that section (there was never more than a single empty section) when they woke up in the morning. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created this page and I’m rather confused about the response. She is a convicted white collar criminal... So whats the BLP issue? There is significant coverage in both the local paper of record (The Hartford Courant) and the national paper of record (The New York Times), notability is well established by that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple independent sources covering her.--TM 14:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a failed political candidate does not trump GNG. Specifically, our subject has received in-depth coverage prior to her failed political career - e.g. SI in 2001, Courant in 1996, or this book (snippet view) from 1998. Her somewhat unusual campaigns also received quite a bit of coverage (and that adds to notability, not detracts). Furthermore her campaign finance issues and subsequent conviction have lead to more coverage (possibly passing WP:NCRIME by itself) - most congressional campagins don't end with the candidate and a former governor jailed... See - [24][25][26][27][28][29][30], mention - in this book. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Zachary Danao

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[1] ttps://www.businessinsider.com/spin-scooter-ceo-college-campuses-key-beating-lime-bird-2019-3

[2] ttps://radiopublic.com/the-unconventional-path-entrepren-WoA9wx/ep/s1!1bc15

[3] ttps://businessradio.wharton.upenn.edu/episodes/launch-pad-august-2-2017/

[1]

[2]

[3]