Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 April	4 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. The only person arguing for keep has not convinced anyone else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Trem

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, much less GNG. Has a few songs with claims of airplay. Not much on the way of independent sourcing (mostly twitter and youtube). Article moved out of draft by a new user, perhaps a WP:MEAT based on talk page communication. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NMUSIC/WP:BASIC - all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings or major label signings. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Google search does not provide any RSes to support notability. Article appears to be entirely self-promotional. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes references to Social Media and YouTube because those are the official profiles of the artist, and where a lot of info lies. Article includes significant info about artist. Includes "Broken" mini-viral success. Definitely should be kept in Wikipedia. 69.121.195.96 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not give suggestions of improvement instead of deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.195.96 (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our suggestions would be to remove all links to social media and to streaming and download websites like iTunes, since anybody can write about themselves and upload their music online, and include sources like newspapers and magazines where established and independent journalists are writing about Mr. Trem. If you can't do that because nobody else is talking about him, then it's a good indication that the artist is not notable outside his own social media, and should be deleted. Richard3120 (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a new source regarding airplay. I'm currently searching for other sources.69.121.195.96 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC) — 69.121.195.96 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article cannot in anyway hurt Wikipedia. Seems like a worthwhile and notable article about the artist, and even more sources will become available once artist releases new music, so deletion doesn't seem necessary to me. Social media sources can be useful if they come directly from the artist's profiles, validating the information as accurate. OhNana24 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC) strike vote from checkuser blocked account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"it doesn't hurt Wikipedia to keep this article" is not a valid argument. You have to show that the subject passes notability according to Wikipedia guidelines, not your personal opinion. Richard3120 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer. We dont keep articles on the theory that more sources will come to exist in the future, or the subject will do more productions, we base articles on the person currently being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the article's current state, it is notable. Sources are reliable, such as to "radio airplay pros", a trusted music promotion company, and the document referencing Trem's participation in vocal ensembles. It's not all social media sources, and when it is, it is to get official info on the artist. Artist has an official website, which is a good sign of legitimacy.

I very much care about Wikipedia and would not be fighting for this article if I didn't genuinely believe it is worthwhile to Wikipedia. 1, the suggestions you have given me, such as finding independent sources besides Social media, I followed and added to the article. Proof of airplay in "radioairplaypros.com" source. Artist has several published singles, and is even officially registered as a songwriter under ASCAP, as shown here: https://www.ascap.com/repertory#ace/writer/892011350/TREMITIEDI JOSEPH ABALO. This article deserves to stay on Wikipedia.69.121.195.96 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Radio Airplay Pros is not a reliable source, it's a marketing company where you have to pay to get your song played on the radio. And being listed in the ASCAP database just means "I've written a song" – that doesn't make either the writer or the song notable. Richard3120 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other editors who voted delete had reasoning which meshed with my reasoning. This article doesn't match with Wikipedia's music notability guidelines and as such needs to be deleted. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Composers, a writer may be considered notable if he or she has credit in either lyrics of musical composition. Trem has several, which is why he is stated to be a songwriter as well as being an artist. 69.121.195.96 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It says no such thing on the WP:COMPOSERS page. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I cited the wrong site. It actually says it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria for composers and lyricists

OK, but you're still wrong... it says "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition". None of Mr. Trem's compositions are notable. Richard3120 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OhNana24 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC) strike inappropriate instructions from CU-blocked account.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just too soon. I couldn't find any coverage about this young musician in independent reliable sources, and he doesn't satisfy any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO Zingarese talk · contribs 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The keep votes seem to argue rewarding this subject with a wiki page based on mere existence per social media, numbers of views on self-download sites, databases, etc., but there is no evidence of independent, third party RS recognition. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:47, 10 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) 05:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Murphy

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Neither being a country freeholder or unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate makes him notable. Also, it appears that he was a county commissioner of the board of elections since no such position exists at a state level. Rusf10 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither serving on a county council nor being an unsuccessful candidate in a party primary passes WP:NPOL at all, but this is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar that he would actually have to clear: it is far too dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in the party primary coverage that always exists for every party primary, and not nearly enough on notability-making coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 4 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) 05:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When Disaster Strikes (TV series)

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

Article about a television series, featuring no indication of any reliable source coverage for the purposes of making it notable per WP:TVSHOW. Two of the three footnotes here are its own primary source content about itself (one from the production company that made it and one from the network that aired it), while the third is a FEMA emergency training manual that has nothing whatsoever to do with this show, and is here solely to "reference" tangential content that's trending in a vaguely how-to direction. ("Every situation is different and requires a creative, no-nonsense plan". You don't say!) In addition, the article was created by a user named "Parallaxpete", indicating a clear conflict of interest when you notice that the show was produced by Parallax Film Productions. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 23:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic paint-by-numbers 'disaster porn' put out in the market and not aired exclusively by one network because its only purpose is to fill an hour of television network time. Also going by this, it's also a damned WP:ADVERT for certain disaster remediation services, which at best is plain dishonest, but otherwise is a betrayal to a viewer just wanting to learn about disasters without getting a sales pitch about getting rid of mold with it (and no, Fox never aired this show; maybe one of their affiliates did on a Sunday afternoon to fill time when football wasn't on, but an American broadcast network airing this as part of their schedule would get sources by television critics who would call an American broadcast network mad for airing such crummy programming). Nate • (chatter) 20:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I strongly suspect this is an infomercial series. RobDuch (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Hsiao

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Those of the given sources that are not IMDb or Hsiao's own company are trivial passing mentions or rehashed press releases that repeat what Hsiao says without any independent reporting. The article claimed that Hsiao's book was a New York Times bestseller; I could not find a reliable source backing up that claim. Huon (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO for a non notable professional publicist who has dabbled in acting and written a children's book, fails WP:AUTHOR. WP:ACTOR,despite citations to IMDB and 1 article about her having written book. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional, sadly.TH1980 (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The China Daily article counts as a reliable in-depth source, but her book (the focus of the article) is neither widely read nor well-received. Probably WP:TOOSOON if anything. Timmyshin (talk) 18:41, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Splash conception

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

WP:NOTDICT, also a slang term with no actual reliable sources that use it - in fact, it's primarily used by sources which cite wikipedia or urban dictionary, so WP:CIRCULAR applies as well. Praxidicae (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with nom, need reliable sources to establish notability and non-trivial discussion in those reliable source on the topic to summarize in order to have enough content for an article. Clearly fails WP:NOTDICT. Waggie (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per unmatched opening bracket and per nomination. 84percent (talk) 12:22, 8 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. Sandstein 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seldom Seen Roadhouse

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

No indication of notability, does not pass WP:NBUILD Rusf10 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a couple of new references and stuck two of the ones already included inline. Not sure it's enough, but one is a short book I couldn't see but seems to be actually about the place. --valereee (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered, according to the book cover image in this reference, it is derived from wikipedia, so circular! Aoziwe (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe, hahahahaha! OMG, that's pretty funny. Good catch! --valereee (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would suggest a "Merge/redirect" to Mount Seldom Seen, but no wikiarticle (yet?). Coolabahapple (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, maybe expand this article to include Mount Seldom Seen, then move? --valereee (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Failing that merge to Gelantipy, the nearest settlement.----Pontificalibus 18:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unfortunately. The subject seems to be iconic. There many many references in "blogs", cycling, touring, 4wdriving, etc., over time and also obitrary in nature. However, I cannot find anything of significance in what would be sufficiently IRS. Merging to the locality Seldom Seen, Victoria would be ideal, but no such article yet. If I get a chance I will create such, but it might be a while before I get to do so. Aoziwe (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B. Dexter Ryland

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

County-level judge who fails WP:JUDGE/WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:JUDGE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County/district court judges don't get an automatic free pass over WP:JUDGE just for existing — a judge has to have statewide jurisdiction to clear that bar, not just single-region jurisdiction within a regionally-divided statewide system — but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:JUDGE; we don't need articles about every district judge. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't indicate notability ,and as mentioned above ,he fails WP:JUDGE. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon du Toit

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

I'm not seeing how this photographer meets GNG. Yes he exists - the articles used as references are either interviews or links to photos he has taken. I'm not seeing in depth coverage. Nor am I seeing any links to awards he has won either. Being on TV is not enough Gbawden (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This does not meet the notability criteria outlined at WP:CREATIVE, so this article should be deleted. Qono (talk) 19:49, 4 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David T. Caldwell

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

Fails WP:JUDGE/WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Besides basic local newspaper obits and death records other incredibly poor sources include a "People search and background check" and the authors personal assurances that he contacted the court offices who simply confirmed that Caldwell was at one time a county-level judge. GPL93 (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County/district court judges don't get an automatic free pass over WP:JUDGE just for existing — a judge has to have statewide jurisdiction to clear that bar, not just single-region jurisdiction within a regionally-divided statewide system — but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:JUDGE; one of hundreds of obit articles created by a now banned user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete district judges are not default notable without good sourcing. This makes me start to wonder if Denise Posse-Blanco Lindberg passes notability guidelines. She clearly has gotten more coverage than most judges at her level, but I am still not sure she uis notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 4 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton F. Bell

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. All sources used are local newspaper obituaries, only two are actual about him GPL93 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 16:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a classic Billy Hathorn obituary biography. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Between BIO and ANYBIO and GNG, not a single one of those is automatically passed just because a person can show the existence of a single obituary in their local media — but the only other references present here at all are tangential verification of the deaths of his wife, son and law partner, not notability-supporting media coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need articles about every district judge in the US; an obit and local coverage doesn't address WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:06, 4 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) Natg 19 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infysec

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP, very promotional, press references are relatively minor, several references are to press releases. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to just pass WP:GNG in terms of significant coverage. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:NORG, WP:ORGCRIT, WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per WP:GNG___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:46, 10 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lorena Ayala

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

Once again, we meet under this stupid circumstance. What should have been a A7 without question now has to be dragged through this process. ALL this article says is she is Spanish and Dutch and a directory of modeling agencies. NO INDICATION OF IMPORTANCE. Trillfendi (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could not find any RS. Fails GNG and NMODEL. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 4 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tejasvi Surya

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

This does not pass our WP:NPOLITICIAN criteria 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunudoy (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 14:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 14:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN since he has not won any election yet and has not held any major post. The recent coverage is only based on him being contesting the Lok Sabha election whose results will be declared in May. WIkipedia should not be used for WP:PROMO or WP:PUFFERY of election candidates. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject clearly does not pass WP:POLITICIAN, as he is an unelected candidate for the Lok Sabha. Maybe some people could make a case for passing the general notability guideline, but I would disagree. Once we discount sources about his candidacy, per the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN, we are just left with news reports of unproven allegations against him and of the injunction he received preventing these allegations being repeated in the Indian media. We should not base an article on these, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. If he wins the election the article can be recreated, as he would then pass WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has received significant coverage for a media gag order as well as allegations of sexual harassment, but other than that, nothing. Article can possibly be created should the candidate win the election. But till that happens, delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won, but this does not make any credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway, nor cites anywhere near enough sources to render his candidacy a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. Obviously it can be recreated on or after election day if he wins, but literally nothing here (neither in the substance nor the sourcing) is enough to already get him over the bar today. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 4 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witch hat

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

The article has only a single unreliable source which was written by the notorious occultist Rosemary Ellen Guiley who is not a reliable source for the history of garments, or anything else for that matter. 2601:3C7:200:7020:D8AF:7093:FBD4:C796 (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter. --Finngall ^talk 14:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While sometimes it makes sense to complete nominations on the behalf of our unregistered editors, this, I do not think, was one of them. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF and WP:HUMAN I'm normally pretty indulgent when it comes to all but the most egregiously bad-faith AfD nominations from IPs provided that they perform all of the necessary followup steps as was the case here. (I watchlist WP:BADAFD to keep track of AfDs with possible issues and do far more reversions of mangled nominations than completions of anonymous ones.) My first impression was that this was not very likely to be deleted, but I wasn't going to !vote as such without looking into it more deeply. --Finngall ^talk 17:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Seems there ought to be more to find on this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject definitely passes WP:GNG. That said, the article could use some cleanup and references, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to delete something of such obvious general interest. Skirts⁸⁹ 14:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a straight keep or at worst a redirect to witch. I'll stake my witch hat that this topic is notable though, so I'm really more inclined to the keep. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be more to find, so I have also added a 'find sources' on the talk page, but a quick look through doesn't seem to provide anything but the trivial, so I suspect not passing WP:GNG. Perhaps others will have better luck, and list here links that are reliable. Witch's Hat (what it should be called if it is a specific type), has a short mention in Pointed hat, of which this is a variant, and which could be fattened out with this article's topic merged into that, but probably without the text in this article, the editorializing of which looks suspiciously like copyvio and/or original research. Has anyone got access to this book to check p.396 ? Does anyone have info on whether Rosemary Ellen Guiley is considered by WP as a reliable source... not every subject of a WP article is considered reliable to cite. If this article is keep, it needs certainly a good copyedit flush. Acabashi (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly better sources available (see [1][2][3] and items therein) for the disputed history of this iconic cultural signifier. XOR'easter (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is verifiable and definitely pass WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 16:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I rewrote the article so that it does not rely upon the source whose reliability was called into question. Problem solved. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Guiley source might be fine, it just needs investigating. Good that you removed the bottom two long paras, uncited and probably largely OR. Acabashi (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the nomination. The article has been almost entirely rewritten which has fixed the sourcing and copyvio issues. I think that this discussion can be closed as a speedy keep. 2601:3C7:200:7020:D8AF:7093:FBD4:C796 (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Bolin

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

Elected county judge who fails WP:NPOL. The only sources used in this page are his and his wife's obituaries in the local newspaper. GPL93 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree per nom that this county judge does not pass WP:NPOL. Skirts⁸⁹ 14:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he simply wasn’t generally notable. Trillfendi (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. District court judges don't get an automatic free pass over our notability standard for judges, which require a statewide seat and not just a regional one — but this is referenced entirely to his and his daughter's paid-inclusion legacy.com obituaries with exactly zero evidence of notability-supporting journalism, which means there's no argument for a WP:GNG pass either. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 4 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Walter Peirce

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

The only in-depth coverage is his obit, which appears to be of the type submitted by the family for publication. While he is a published author, none of his writings appear to pass WP:NBOOK. Can'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Walter_Peirce&action=editt see anything to show he passes either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least three of the four books mentioned in the article were self-published (see AuthorHouse). Plenty of worthwhile material on niche topics can show up that way, and his Guide to Patapsco Valley Mill Sites actually got a favorable review in a scholarly journal. But that only gets him a little ways up a steep hill. I'm just not finding a case for passing WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:GNG - the books may well be wonderful, but the sources just aren't out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 4 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajanta Hospital & IVF Centre

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

Promotional article, with virtually zero in-depth secondary sourcing currently. Searches, using either the full name or simply Ajanta Hospital, produce a few hits, but no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a private medical practice that is being called a "hospital." All I could find were listing sites. --valereee (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:RS. Flapjacktastic (talk) 05:11, 4 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Patel (online marketing strategist)

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

fails WP:GNG non notable blogger. Theroadislong (talk) 11:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable person. While I am sure that a significant chunk of the internet's populace has come across the subject, there is no inherent notability. All news sources are PR pieces or passing mentions or articles written by the subject himself. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This discussion was already decided upon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (entrepreneur) and little seems to have changed apart from this latest reincarnation's title. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable person/blogger. Fails WP:ANYBIO. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT to make sure the article isn't re-created again. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has been rehashed multiple times, and the consensus is that the subject does NOT pass WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already deleted as created by a banned user. ST47 (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Noor

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Notability can not be inherited. I do not see any substantial coverage or extraordinary achievement that can help in demonstrating independent notability. Hitro talk 09:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to establish notability. Father, sister and mother can be considered notable in their own rights and notability isn't inherited. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. If GNG is actually achieved in the future then refund. Trillfendi (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Via Vision Entertainment

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

Subject is a home entertainment company, distributing television and film on DVD and Blue-Ray. A WP:BEFORE found no IS and RS to qualify WP:NCORP nobility guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. 08:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Reeks of being a puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find anything really about the subject that was IRS. Plenty of marketing stuff and reviews of their releases but nothing of note about them that I could see. Aoziwe (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Singer (attorney)

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

Longstanding article on subject who does not meet WP:N criteria. Even though we've had this around for 10 years there is no indication that the subject rises to the level of notability. Basic claims to fame are "name partner" in a law firm and frequently available for interview in the press.

The article has many other obvious flaws but the key issue here is that even with a committed editor the subject doesn't meet our notability criteria.

Also of note, all significant content has been added by four users: three of them added content only to this article; the other was an IP editor from the article subject's own company. An admin may want to check where the edits from the three named accounts originated. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More info... all links out of this article are to very generic articles. The only inbound mainspace link is from a DAB page. So no great indication that he's of relevance beyond his own orbit. He does get himself in the press somewhat, recently because he's happy to defend #MeToo-accused men. If that passes the WP:N bar (I think not), then the puffery could be excised and the article could be reduced to a stub.Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the 60,000 hits that come up on Google, most of what I'm seeing are just mentioning "so and so's lawyer... John Singer". I'm not finding anything relevant to significant cases, or anything to really put him over the weakest general criteria. We don't really have a criterion for Lawyers, since this failed so we have to go off of a generalized notability right? Other than being on talk shows for interviews, what would qualify him? Nothing that I can see. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Article has already been deleted under A7, and G11. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh Dube

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

On his own he doesn't seem notable. Most of the articles here are about his organization doing something, and he is the one who speaks to the media regarding the same, because apparenly he is a high ranking member there. The awards mentioned also do not seem notable. Daiyusha (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly promotional and likely paid-for spam. MER-C 08:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The notability may be debatable, but there are plenty of sources. The article appears to be written as a promotion, but we could work together to change that. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afzal Ali Shigri

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. This was recently created and deleted. Saqib (talk) 05:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Afzal Ali Shigri is a famous Pakistani civil service officer , a former IG Sindh, security analyst and also a notable columnist in Pakistan's largest English newspaper Dawn. There are enough reliable sources which can prove the notability of the subject. Without any solid proof this page must not be deleted. Yet more citation needed which can be improved. ^[1] ^[2] He is also a trustee of a notable NGO Marafie Foundation ^[3] Great An786 (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subjects served in many senior positions in the Pakistani civil service. The equivalent of the office holder these jobs in any anglo-saxon countries has a wikipedia page. Considering all the current RS in this article as "trivial coverage" would reflect systemic bias against non-western countries. Emass100 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Emass100: The only senior position the subject served is Inspector-general of police of Sindh Police. Inspector-general of police is equivalent to chief constable in the UK. Wikipedia bios missing on several UK's chief constable. --Saqib (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While WP doesn't have an article on all of the UK's current chief constables; for a lot of the ones listed here, their only claim to notability seem to be their position as chief constable, such as Paul Crowther (police officer) and Ian Dyson. The sourcing in their articles is similar to the sourcing for Afzal Ali Shigri.Emass100 (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Afzal Ali Shigri is not only a civil service officer, he is a well known writer. His articles are published in Dawn a famous English newspaper of Pakistan. He is also an activist. He is the trustee of Marafie Foundation an NGO based in Pakistan. ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] WikiMaster 15:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.dawn.com/authors/4611/afzal-ali-shigri
^ http://www.arabnews.pk/node/1376651/pakistan
^ http://www.marafiefoundation.org/en/pages.aspx?tp=6
^ http://www.marafiefoundation.org/en/pages.aspx?tp=6
^ https://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-battles-rising-sectarian-violence/2643517.html
^ https://fp.brecorder.com/2015/01/201501231144692/

Note This AfD is sock infested Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anchan Balti. --Saqib (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the votes of the socking user above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as WP:G7 per author's request. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kranti Sangha

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

I couldn't find any evidence of notability. In fact, I couldn't find anything on this club apart from Facebook. Fram (talk) 04:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Kleuske (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search for "Kranti Sangha" cricket has 7 results:2 wiki pages, 3 facebook and a couple of other pages that don't mention cricket. No refs in article to show which league the team plays in, but it certainly isn't at a notable level. Spike 'em (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdraw. Looks good now. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miriama Smith

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO. A Google search brought up blogs about beauty products. Her biggest claim to fame is probably Power Rangers Dino Thunder. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some solid coverage in newspapers based in New Zealand. Her voice was chosen to be the first Maori voice at the Auckland train system and along with coverage on her TV roles shows notability.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:CIVIL prevents offering actual opinion of this nomination. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep: Definitely satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has starred in shows that have received world wide distribution. The article was just neglected and incomplete. User:Vinegarymass911 has significantly improved it.Rain the 1 09:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Seriously???? Easily meets all the necessary notability criteria. Paora (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paora, I checked Google news and I found hits of some kind of promo http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/beauty/beauty-news/9689394/In-my-beauty-bag-Miriama-Smith

Also, before the article only have a single reference. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bell

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

Reason I am very new and this might be very presumptuous, but it appears this biography is written about a person who is probably non-notable and relies on sources that are not usable for BLPs. There is little third party coverage of Bell to be found. I think reliable source coverage is required to establish notability? Bene.Nota (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sources that clearly are secondary coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an IP had recently removed statement of her post at Sanofi, which seems to make her notable and is supported by her description as speaker at a conf and her linkedin page - though curiously I can't find her mentioned on Sanofi's page, so there may have been a recent change (but notability is not temporary). Have restored the lead, and added sources. PamD 09:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the plot thickens. I think there may have been recent change - Clint Wallace is described as "Global Head of HR, Digital and Analytics", though not on his LinkedIn page. Bell doesn;t seem to be mentioned on Sanofi website though her LinkedIn page has her as "SVP, Global Head of Digital and Analytics", Sanofi. Possibly a recent change, with IP with inside knowledge and/or COI? PamD 10:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The article does not approve notability. Alex-h (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Strauss

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

This biography is written about a person who is likely non-notable and relies on sources that are not usable for BLPs. It relies on sources such university websites, faculty lists, and lists of articles written. None of these establish notability and their use in a BLP should be minimal, only to establish basic facts. Certainly, Strauss has written some opinion pieces for large organizations, but there is little to no third party coverage of him to be found. Per WP:BIO independent, reliable source coverage is required to establish notability. Without significant third-party coverage, there is no indication that the subject is notable and this bio should be deleted. SWL36 (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now While I agree about the state of the article, he might be notable enough (he has a few secondary sources covering him) for inclusion. He has been both a national OpEd columnist and a manager in the NYC municipality. But the whole problem is that it seems like Steven Strauss or someone with a close connection to him may possibly be editing the article, and continues to do so using multiple sockpuppets. It might be a good idea to investigate the COI issue first? It might be useful if you could look into this? Avaya1 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article Steven Strauss to address WP:Blp and notability issues (Note - on the talk page for Strauss it has been claimed that I have a conflict, the issue of who has a conflict re this article should be discussed in a different venue). But, re my purported COI, I view this as binary:

I am Strauss (or his employee, or whatever), my concerns about BLP should be treated v seriously, or
I have no COI, again my concerns should be taken seriously because I created the page and have been the main (but far from only) editor.

The page (at the moment) has no meaningful secondary sources and that alone is a reason to consider deletion. Strauss, has been covered in independent secondary media (e.g., The Guardian,The Observer, CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg Radio, NYTimes, Canadian Broadcasting, etc.), generally introduced/mentioned as an academic and cited/interviewed/quoted about economic development, American politics and public policy, and technology issues. These are also the areas in which he received some (minor) awards. Someone deleted all of this (and keeps deleting it) claiming it was peakcokery, puffery, non-encyclopedic and/or non-significant coverage. Oddly the same editor keeps adding thinly sourced info on Israel-Palestine, for which Strauss has no independent secondary coverage.

Addendum, another reason given (in the edits) for deleting the independent secondary media coverage of Strauss, is that it is not independent in the Wikipedia sense. The claim is that since most of these are not media reports about strauss, but rather Strauss being interviewed/quoted they are not independent. So the claim is that because it is CNBC interviewing Strauss for his views on technology, it is not independent. Having prepared this material I can confirm most of it is quotes and interviews, so if that is not considered independent the page should not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC.Geek (talk • contribs) 16:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume the deletions of the independent secondary sources/Strauss’s publications was in good faith and the community agrees they shouldn’t be in the biography - the biography should be deleted

I am concerned about BLP issues from the perspective of Commission and Omission

Examples of Issues of Commission: Recently, someone keeps putting on the page things like Strauss’s middle initial is D, he was born in 1958, and worked at McKinsey for 5 years. As far as I can tell no sources on the page support these claims. These claims might be accurate, but I know of no secondary or primary source that supports these claims.
Examples of Omission/Deletion: Recently, someone keeps deleting that Strauss is an academic. Strauss has a Ph.D. from Yale, was a Fellow and junior faculty member at Harvard and since 2014 has held a named Visiting Professorship at Princeton. He has a modest amount of academic publications and citations (someone deleted this info from the page) For the last several years when Strauss is quoted/cited on CNN, etc. it is always as an academic (Prof. Strauss ...). I am not claiming Strauss is a notable academic, but I can’t understand why his being an academic is being deleted.
Example of placing thinly sourced controversial material on the page - Lately someone has been posting on the page thinly sourced stuff on the page re Strauss’s views on Israel-Palestine. None of what has been posted reflects independent secondary coverage of Strauss’s opinions on Israel, I am also not sure what is being posted is even an accurate summary of what Strauss thinks on this topic. Nothing that I am aware of indicates Strauss is an expert on Israel-Palestine so I am not clear why this stuff is being posted.

If we can’t address these BLP issues that is another reason to consider deleting the page

NYC.Geek (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NYC.Geek (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYC.Geek (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are now saying you are Strauss? The subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, and there are secondary sources discussing the editor, such as The Silicon Alley 100: New York's Coolest Tech People In 2010. The issue is that it should be not be edited by a person with a COI. Avaya1 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass any relevant SNG (for New York City Economic Development nor for academics). The sources in the article do not establish SIGCOV. Now - sure - he definitely generates op-eds and speaking engagements. But we're lacking secondary, in-depth, and independent coverage on the subject of the article. Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject writes for a major national newspaper, and has secondary source coverage. The issue with the article is COI. The COI issue should be addressed first. Avaya1 (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it - we don't quite have secondary SIGCOV on the subject. We have a subject who filled a mid-level political/administrative role in city government, who went on to teach a bit, and took to writing a column in a national newspaper. None of these are inherently notable - they could be (given coverage) - but they aren't in the presumed notable range. While I can find things our subject wrote - I see very little on our subject. Given that notability of our subject is borderline at best, the nature of the editing on the article does not encourage me to retain it. Looking at the references in the article (in this version as of April 5) - all the sources are either employers/self-profiles/not-RS with one exception - The Silicon Alley 100: New York's Coolest Tech People In 2010, Business Insider - which has all of two paragraphs on our subject. In short - sources demonstrating GNG have not been presented here. Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (see above for my reasoning). However, Avaya1 you deleted all of the other secondary sources that used to be in this article (Guardian, Observer, NYTimes, CNBC, etc), claiming (in the edits) they were "peacocky, puffery, and non-encyclopedic". It would move this conversation forward if you would tell us the secondary sources you are satisfied with, or restore them to the page.

It would also help if you could address the WP:BLP issues you created (e.g., what is your source for claiming Strauss spent 5 years at McKinsey), why do you keep posting about Strauss's purported views on Israel-Palestine when no secondary coverage exists of his opinions on that subject (to my knowledge Strauss, is known and quoted for his work on economic development, technology and US domestic policy) and why do you claim Strauss is not an academic? NYC.Geek (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your COI concerns, you have made this claim against me on multiple talk pages, I suggest you raise the COI issue at WP:COIN and that we use this discussion to focus on the deletion decision.NYC.Geek (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmic

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NWEB. SITH (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Search result returned almost nothing about it. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Fushman

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

I do not currently see any notability, either specifically as a businessperson, or according to WP:GNG--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:PROF on the academic stuff and the sources have the flavor of WP:ROUTINE coverage of business staff changes. They don't seem to speak to the notability of the subject, but the companies that hired him. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The appropriate standard is WP:GNG, not WP:PROF. The coverage of his career moves looks superficially impressive, but on inspection the sources (while reliable, independent, and about the subject) do not provide enough depth of coverage of the subject for an article. Typically there is one sentence saying something vacuous like "Fushman is the kind of person we're looking for" surrounded by a couple paragraphs of filler about the places he's moving from and to. That's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from stub creator. Concerning David Eppstein's analysis, which I agree with mostly, I would argue that what he describes as "a couple paragraphs of filler about the places he's moving from and to" are plenty to prove notability. The content may be boring and have little relevance to someone not actively following Silicon Valley IPOs, but business press is typically boring anyways, and not a reason to overlook content. More specifically, sensationalism and GNG have no relation, as far as I can make sense of the guideline. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. By Wikipedia's particular definition of notability merely having a lot of videos and having a lot of them reuploaded by followers is not enough to make something notable, and the sources presented do not appear to be reliable enough to establish notability either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Prince (Pseudonymous Christian Apologist)

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

I can't find evidence that he has received significant attention in reliable sources. The book is listed at all the common webshops and the like, and there are the usual twitter, youtube, wordpress, ... sources, but nothing substantial and reliable (nothing in News or Google Books as far as I can tell, searching for "Christian Prince" "the deception of allah"). Fram (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CP is really well-known today. If you search on Youtube and you just found a few videos which uploaded by himself, because some of those videos had been removed by him previously. But, you can find bunch of videos, maybe thousand videos of him, on which re-uploaded by his followers. His latest big debates was with Shabir Ally as his opponent and they both are still arguing even though not in debates. Kekemycuppa (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just added two third party references to the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two blogs, not reliable sources. Fram (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your first ref Blog Talk Radio is not a WP:RS; your second ref Yahya Snow's Blog is not a WP:RS.

If this was a "normal" BLP, I would be deleting these two references from the article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Christian Prince has been around for over a decade and is an author and you-tuber well-known amongst both Islamic and Christian apologists.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plese see WP:BIO. We need evidence from reliable sources that he is well-known, not things like blogs or youtube. Fram (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he has been around for over a decade, you should be able to provide references (per WP:RS) to support his notability? Britishfinance (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be PROMO for a YouTube personality. No coverage found in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For somone who has been around for a decade, and operates mostly online, I find very little WP:RS on him that would meet WP:GNG (usually, media/youtube-stars are drowning in lower-tier RS). He has three books on Amazon (noted on the article), but I cannot see any decent WP:RS reviewing them, to give him WP:NAUTHOR? Britishfinance (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything at all, really. I suppose it's possible there are sources in other languages. Is there an article on another wikipedia? --valereee (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 11 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. @PaulTheAirplane: please read WP:NBIO for our guidelines on what we need for a biography. In short, you list things the subject did, and what we need is things that reliable sources have written about him. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Arechar

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

Appears to be of local fame, but I can't find anything that meets criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Google search results (106 of them) mainly in Milwaukee-area news and lists of where he is appearing. ... discospinster _talk 17:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi, I wrote this article. The user above didn't think to include my rebuttal to this proposed deletion, but here is what I wrote in the original talk page. Thank you.

I see it has been proposed that this page be deleted, however I object to the reasoning behind it. I am unsure how the distinction between "local" and "widespread" fame was made in this scenario, but I believe it is very clear that the subject at hand has fame that extends beyond just the Midwest. He has appeared on MTV as a live host at an awards show in Los Angeles and has DJ'd at a California festival. Additionally he has opened for many well-known national comedians. I think this heavily tilts in favor of the subject being notable enough for a Wikipedia page.--PaulTheAirplane (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see several articles in the Chicago Tribune on him but for some reason I can't read them as they are blocked to EU readers?? Britishfinance (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Britishfinance: - I've had a look at the three chicago tribune sources I could find mentioning him (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3). They all are about various stand up shows (two directly, 1 concentrates on a person organising them). However Arechar only gets brief mentions in each. If this is a desire to use them for GNG then they won't really help. If they are being used to demonstrate participation in significant reviewed comedy acts in Chicago than they definitely help. I leave that aspect to participants to decide. Please let me know if you have further questions on them. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks Nosebagbear! I don't think that we therefore have a quality WP:RS that gives him WP:SIGCOV; which I think is an important anchor for a BLP (e.g. if no material RS is covering him, why is WP). thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - search yields No WP:RS. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Young comedian, "Five Chicago comedians to look out for" )(2016) is the best source on the page. My searches for additional coverage turned up only listings, almost entirely in Chicago, one in Madison, and a comedy festival in Iowa City. Fails WP:CREATIVE, fails WP:SIGCOV. But there should be no prejudice against creating a new page going forward if this young comic gets a major role or generates SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:25, 11 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) 06:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotinand Dubey

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

Unelected politician, fails WP:NPOL. Cabayi (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because he exists, but the article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NPOL. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Ehrenfeld

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

No coverage in reliable sources as far as I can tell, her iMDB doesn't even lead me to believe she meets WP:NACTOR and her spox position for Overstock didn't lead to any coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be based on realible sources. IMDb is not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McEvedy Shield

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

Non notable high school competition between local schools not even nationwide. Coverage is all pretty much either WP:ROUTINE or from non reliable sources (weeby). Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:YOUNGATH, WP:NSPORTSEVENT. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 09:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC) NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 09:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep. Significant coverage under general notability~~[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

The problem with the references are that they are all from the Dominion Post, a Wellington newpaper. As much as I would like to support you I can not find references outside the Region. The mentions in other papers outside the region related to the graffiti incident several years ago or to specific atheletes backgrounds. NealeFamily (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was why I didn't think it meets WP:GNG either because of course you would expect a local paper, which Stuff/Dominion post is, to cover local school events. It isn't even a national wide important event as you also say, it only made papers outside Wellington because of silly behaviour. Otherwise it won't be reported outside Wellington generally again. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 05:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, NealeFamily. No contest to the Shield being of mostly regional notability and some events having happened in the past. Do these prevent it reaching general notability? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep. Not only are there several reliable references, but this page is linked to from (the pages of) several of the schools involved. And why does it matter that the references are only from Wellington newspaper(s)? If this event were covered only by newspapers in New Zealand (an only slightly larger 'region', in the grand (global) scheme of things), then we wouldn't care. (For instance, nobody is suggesting that the Mitre 10 Cup page be deleted, even though this event is covered only within New Zealand.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except the Mitre 10 cup is a national and professional competition, so its not really comparing apples with apples. This is a school boy competition, only covered by local papers as part of routine. Yes it maybe on the school pages, but it can be summed up their without needing its own article. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:NZFC. You can convince me easily, just point out the rule that says locally significant things that pass general notability should not have pages on Wikipedia. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete To both Dushan Jugum and Ross Finlayson the problem with McEvedy is that the competition is local not National, also it receives only local coverage not National - in these two aspects it fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. It is questionable if it meets WP:GNG in that one or two articles a year in the local newspaper where the event is held does not to my mind constitute significant coverage. For guidance, I would suggest that WP:YOUNGATH's requirement of substantial and prolonged coverage would be required for GNG anyway. NealeFamily (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of significant coverage is it “addresses the topic directly and in detail” WP:GNG not the amount of references. For that see “There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.” WP:GNG. I am asking is there a Wikipedia rule that says that things of only local importance (eg. within one city) should not to be given their own page? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However in terms of events - this does not meet WP:DIVERSE under Notability for events. It is the fact that it is a localised event that is counting against it. NealeFamily (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Removed my Keep "vote" as WP:DIVERSE means too little coverage for general notability. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BestChange

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

Advertising, PR. Кронас (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: ru:BestChange#Примечания. --Mitte27 (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This theme have a notability only for some Russian speaker people (normally admin in Ru.wikipedia should delete this page too, but may be who order this page for write pay...). For English - i'ts just spam. Кронас (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:ITSLOCAL. --Mitte27 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ru:Википедия:К удалению/27 января 2019#Итог 17. --Mitte27 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:WEB, WP:WEBCRIT. --PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obelisk International

AfDs for this article:

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

AFAICT none of the sources on this page actually mention this now-defunct company, and I can't find independent sources pertaining to them when they weren't defunct. On referring to the previous AFD it seems only to have escaped owing to simple lack of replies and because I failed to notice (or mention?) that as well as being AFDed by a shill for one of its rivals it was created by a shill. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a property investment firm which existed from 2007-14.[12] The text and the sources concern a Brazil government programme in which the firm possibly saw a business opportunity rather than about the firm itself. The Google News link returns some brief coverage and passing mentions while the firm was going about its business (as well as some articles dated well after the company's dissolution which appear to relate to a Russian company of this name), but I see nothing sufficient for the current WP:NCORP requirements. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that notability is satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Bueche

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

Fails WP:GNG which is WP:VG notability guideline. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Probably passes GNG. Being part of the founding team of Origin Systems, including a portrayal in Ultima tends to generate SIGCOV. e.g. [13][14][15]. Should be a whole bunch of 80s and 90s hits in newspaper archives. Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there are plenty of mentions-in-passing in current news articles, and I'm sure that newspaper archives will show more significant coverage. He even has a Lifetime Achievement Award named after him [16], so it's highly unlikely such coverage does not exist. Bradv🍁 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Bishop

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There's a lot of mere mentions in coverage about the shows she was in online, but nothing substantial. A career of 2 children's television shows does not meet WP:NACTOR in my opinion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough roles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kidambi. Content can also be merged from history. Sandstein 09:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitambi

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

Article is poorly written, with text largely copied from another article, and does not seem to be notable. OliverEastwood (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:Merge with Kidambi.(WP:MERGEREASON)--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Kidambi. They are variants of the same name. Cnilep (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Variant of the surname Kidambi. Half of this article is basically copied from the Kidambi article; I don't see anything worth merging. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Neighborhood of Make-Believe. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21 (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Striped Tiger

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the sources I can find refer to the children's TV character and I am finding no significant coverage of the band in RS. Fails WP:NMUSIC. ~~Delete~~. Redirect to Neighborhood of Make-Believe per below. Just Chilling (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything by the band after their 2011 album No Difference... that was the same year that their guitarist Sean Yeaton joined the far more successful Parquet Courts, so I'm guessing that Daniel Striped Tiger split up at that time, and it is unlikely that there has been any coverage in the last eight years. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and~~ redirect to Neighborhood of Make-Believe. The band fails WP:NMUSIC with only incidental mentions by reliable sources. This page was a redirect before it was hijacked in 2010. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

amended comment. Striking delete vote. Content was merged to Neighborhood of Make-Believe per the previous AfD, and attribution history needs to be preserved. Restore the 2005 redirect. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point. I have amended my recommendation, as well. Just Chilling (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neighborhood of Make-Believe. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:51, 9 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.

[1] ttps://www.dawn.com/authors/4611/afzal-ali-shigri

[2] ttp://www.arabnews.pk/node/1376651/pakistan

[3] ttp://www.marafiefoundation.org/en/pages.aspx?tp=6

[4] ttp://www.marafiefoundation.org/en/pages.aspx?tp=6

[5] ttps://www.voanews.com/a/pakistan-battles-rising-sectarian-violence/2643517.html

[6] ttps://fp.brecorder.com/2015/01/201501231144692/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]