Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

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 speedy Delete. WP:G5 (non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ale Jithendra

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

I can't find coverage beyond mere mention in reliable sources. The subject appears to have lost their campaign to be elected to the Malakpet legislature, and thus their sole government post of corporator does not meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Previously nominated for speedy A7 deletion by Natureium, although admittedly at that point the article had no sources--the initial editor promised to add more sources, but the ones that have been added are still inadequate for establishing notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that any of the other contributions have been "significant", so it could probably be G5'd. Natureium (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't checked if the initial editor had been blocked, thanks for pointing that out. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:08, 7 February 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) 01:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traka

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

I'm not sure it would clearly meet G11, so I am nominating it for a consensus decision to delete, keep or deal with in any other apropriate way. The corporate parent seems clearly notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Original author) I have nothing to add to this discussion. Act as you think fit. Jeremy Malies — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyMalies (talk • contribs) 21:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Delete: From what I can see this article seems to have mass WP:PAID problems, users are making few edits and editing a limited set of articles when invloved in this one. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC) -Given it's recent change, I would support keeping it but it still needs work. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT. I found mentions of the company, usually just in security systems websites. No reliable, secondary sources. Aurornisxui (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia, as I was asked to align with Traka company updates. I have taken on board all the comments and reverted back to the original version on advice from Wikipedia Live Chat to avoid the page being deleted. I will seek to understand more the issues so I can update more compliantly. Always learning!LydiaFionaLewis (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC) LydiaFionaLewis[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for further discussion on the pre-PAIDCOI version
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi all, I do want to make amends in line with the conversations I have had with the Wikipedia Live Chat to improve the page - but I am conscious of doing so and adding any confusion, whilst this discussion is ongoing. Please could someone kindly advise when a resolution will occur? Also (apologies) what does 'pre-PAIDCOI' refer? Thank you in advance LydiaFionaLewis —Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per user:K.e.coffman and User:Aurornisxui. There is a difference in sources for content and those supporting notability. Some sources on the article don't even have passing mention. The article Assa Abloy is the parent of "Traka". In the first reference there are five divisions, EMEA, Americas, Asia Pacific, Global Technologies and Entrance Systems. Traka is not listed so is a sub-division actually of EMEA. The first reference mentions Ingersoll-Rand twice, with nothing about Trake or a $14.89bn acquisition price, so does not appear to even be a source for the article. The second reference "does" support the Ministry of Justice, with mention of the FBI (not in the paragraph), but does not mention the Metropolitan Police Service’s Royalty Protection Squad. The third reference does mention Traka in an article dated 10 Dec 2011 and pre-acquisition. The "Awards" reference does not contain Traska at all. What about John Kent? He was the founder and still company manager of Trasha. Even with that added I do not see a small company (a sub-division) as deserving a stand-alone article at the expense of the start-class parent company. I might consider merge but that has become an issue with some AFD's. Note to new editors: Thanks for contributing but why would putting divisions and subdivision under a parent article and building it up to C-class or better not be a better plan than two lessor classed articles? The notability is certainly with the parent company. Just a thought because it is not supposed to be about article creation numbers over quality. Articles can always be split. Otr500 (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. We may welcome, appreciate, and admire the efforts of newbies in creating new articles but this does not mean that the standards of Wikipedia must be lowered to accomodate personal gratification. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopaedia and not a course in writing. Anyone who wants to contribute here can easily learn how to do it properly, even when it comes to creating new articles. This is why WP:AFC is in place. -The Gnome (talk) 05:42, 13 February 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) 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilihan FM

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

Article about a radio staton, which is not citing any reliable sources to get it over Wikipedia's criteria for the notability of radio stations. As always, radio stations are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just because their own self-published websites about themselves technically verify that they exist -- one of the core conditions that a radio station has to meet to qualify for an article is that it can be referenced to some degree of coverage in sources that are independent of its own web presence, such as books or newspaper/magazine articles which properly verify the content. I'm not an expert in where to track down Bruneian media coverage, especially given that its secondary inclusion of Chinese and Nepali language content means that some sources may exist in languages I have no ability to read, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can locate more evidence of reliable sourcing than I've been able to find -- but radio stations are not entitled to keep unsourced Wikipedia articles just because they have websites. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BCAST. I did find a newspaper called Borneo Bulletin (not sure about reliability), but they only mentioned the station in passing. Same with the book I found. Aurornisxui (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:BCAST. -The Gnome (talk) 05:43, 13 February 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) 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade School

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

Non notable troubled teen school that was influenced by CEDU. Before search returned youtube videos about people who had attended and troubled teen forums. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Article had a link to a piece from Mother Jones, but it did not mention Cascade School. No legal battles or scandels. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spent some time trying to dig up any archived newspaper sources or anything online and no reliable sources found. Killiondude (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Maybe if someone sued them... --DannyS712 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 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) 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ratial

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

Fails WP:GNG Sitush (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete similar to Bajju Rajput. samee converse 23:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any references to this term. Article has no references (definate case for "draftication" regardless). Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is just a line and no reference , Alex-h (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A custom source search provided this source, published in 1940 by "Government Printing" (link), but this may be a British Raj source, which some on Wikipedia consider to be unreliable regarding clans and tribes. Not sure, because I cannot access the minuscule preview of the title page of the source in a larger size to actually read it. This search provides more sources with snippet views. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a reprint of Lepel Griffin's Chief and Families of Note in the Punjab from ca. 1909. Like most British writers of the Raj era who published about castes/clans etc, he was an amateur in the sphere of ethnography and an administrator by profession. Their aim in writing these books was to document for the purposes of controlling the population for the benefit of empire. - Sitush (talk) 06:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. It's an evidently obscure subject that fails the criteria of verifiable notability. -The Gnome (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per the above, as well as failing WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 13 February 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) 01:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Moncarz

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

WP:BLP of a record producer, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no reliable sources. There are claims here that could get him an article if they were referenced properly, but nothing that's so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to be referenced properly -- but the only "referencing" here is his own primary source profile on the website of his own management agency, not reliable source coverage about him in media. Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find a single reference to him on any of the main Canadian media outlets (tv, radio, newspapers). Unlikely he is going to meet test of "several" RS. Britishfinance (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NPERSON, WP:NCREATIVE, and WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 05:48, 13 February 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) 01:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Small

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

Completely unreferenced biography of a person notable only for being "involved" in organizing and promoting local events. This could get him an article if he could be reliably sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but is not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a poorly referenced article just because he exists or existed. Bearcat (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Sascachuwan Agricultural Hall of Fame reference is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Article been around for over a decade and still only a single line. Britishfinance (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this entirely unsourced small stub of a bio. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 05:49, 13 February 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 Draftify. The potential exists for this to find its way back to mainspace, but that assumes sufficient WP:RS are found. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Study Circle

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

Wholly unsourced article. I am not finding any indepth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nothing is claimed that might promote notability. Fails WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to their official site, it seem the members of the society are from Canada, UK and Hong Kong which they have meetings. I am not sure it have WP:GNG notability which seem lack of secondary source made an in-depth reporting about this interest group. Current content borderline G11, especially it is not encyclopedic to know how much is the membership fee. Matthew hk (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Google throws up references to this group, although not really from high-quality sources; however, there might be something here. Regardless, no references mean that this should be "draftified" until a properly referenced article is produced. Britishfinance (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and graciously return to sender. -The Gnome (talk) 05:51, 13 February 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) 01:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finger Lakes School of Massage

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

2nd nomination. The only sources are directories, local press and similar. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a legitimate institution - it's eligible for federal financial aid - but it's tiny (22 students reported to the Department of Education) and the article as currently written lacks sufficient sources to establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not think there is any rational argument that Wikipedia needs to have articles on every vocational training school that has ever existed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominatiion. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough to establish notability (has been speedy deleted three times in the past) --DannyS712 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Steyn

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

Contested PROD: Individual only notable for one event (from sources). Not written in encyclopedic style. CoolSkittle (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - purely promotional, not sure for what purpose Gbawden (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Talk page discloses that the author is a friend of the subject and that there is an upcoming book. No quality RS now to establish notability. Maybe if his upcoming book becomes notable it can be revisited again. Britishfinance (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Even ignoring WP:COI this does not stand up to scrutiny. -The Gnome (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per current RS, or move to draft pending release of the new book --DannyS712 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low Carbon Cementitious Initiative

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The only source used is published by the subject of the article; a search for sources online yielded only one hit, which was a bio of someone who'd worked with them. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen news reports about the topic, of low-carbon-emitting cement and how important the issue is. Not sure whether those were from this specific research group / initiative. This article could perhaps be merged to the research topic, if there is article, or "Kept" but renamed to be about the topic. --Doncram (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sure, this current article is too narrow, but it is about a huge issue, can be expanded and probably renamed. Google on "low carbon cement" and there are lots of hits, including numerous scholarly articles. There is an article, Eco-cement, about one brand of this cement. That article has external links about the topic, including to this FastCompany article, in which it is mentioned that producing 1 ton of cement usually produces 1 ton of carbon emissions, while asserting that could be reversed. Perhaps that article, too, should be merged also into one article, perhaps Low carbon cement. Akin to clean coal / low-sulphur coal. And to low-carbon building, low-carbon economy, other topics. --Doncram (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article isn't about the general topic however - according to the first sentence of the lead, the article is about a network of academics and industrials. I've got nothing against us having an article about low carbon cement, or the general issue of environmental degradation involved in the production of concrete - but for this article to stand, we would need sources discussing this network of academics and 'industrials' to satisfy notability criteria. I can find almost nothing about them.GirthSummit _(blether) 15:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The wider subject are could potentially be notable, but the LCCI group (the topic of this article) is not. Can't find a single quality RS on their notability. Of the two references, one is the LCCI group's own site, while the other is on the subject area (and does not mention the LCCI). No news outlet seems to have reported on the LCCI group. Britishfinance (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An article on low-carbon cement would be a net benefit to the project, but this article is not that at all. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 13:35, 14 February 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) 02:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Penn

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

I previously Proded the article with the objection of that it fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG last week but it was removed by User:Authenticboy15. The article only cites minor sources, including YouTube. In any event he doesn't meet notability standards. Further note the Prod remover objected with the comment. "I’m a well established media coverage who takes part in many editing platforms for athletes and this athlete’s profile is accurate and legit. Matches information laid out just like many other great athletes detail on the Wikipedia platform. Doesn’t make sense to why it has been placed with a PROD. I removed the PROD because I strongly object. I don’t know the kid but I have tried to cover a story about him and did not get the chance to but I do continue to follow his..." They didn't reference any wiki guidelines UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Authenticboy15 has commented on the talk page of this AfD.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems that the pinnacle of his college football career was to play at Iowa Wesleyan University, a NCAA Division III school. There's of course nothing wrong with that and a division III player could achieve notability, but I see no indication of that to be true. I'm finding no references in independent third party reliable sources, much less the significant coverage we need for inclusion in this encyclopedia. The professional career seems to be with teams in the Indoor Football League, which does not indicate notability achievement as well. If such sources were introduced, I'd be happy to change my position and we could include them in the article--but my research has led me here in this case. I can only see that the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORTS, and any other notability guideline I can find. Perhaps an enthusiastic editor will try another wiki more suitable, such as an online sports almanac.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author). Subject information meets guidelines listed in Wiki guidelines references. Information is blueprinted in simplicit manner. Subject discussed on page is authentic individual, with reliable and authentic sources. Rather than nominate for deletion, why would you as editors not do research on the subject and provide more sources, if you don’t agree that the current sources are “good enough”? Indoor football leagues, as well as arena football leagues are just as notable as other professional leagues of football. Each notable athlete is not always recognized through media and articles, which should not held against them when articles are portrayed in promoting those type of athletes and their story/journey, particularly small schools. This particular issues, has me worried about my other articles I am working on as well. Who have been worked out by NFL teams but I guess that is not considered as high of a standard as playing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authenticboy15 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Question what "other articles" ? The only logs in your history are for Antonio Penn, this discussion, and the talk page for this discussion. In any event, athletes not being recognized through media and articles are precisely reasons not to include articles about them because such a case would not meet notability standards, especially for biographies of living persons. I like your enthusiasm!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This player does not clear WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. There have yet to be any sources provided that indicate notability beyond his achievements at a USCAA school and in semi-professional leagues. Typically, players that are the subject of notable coverage have achieved significant honors in Division I FBS and/or have played in the NFL. —Ostealthy (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also most of the citations that even suggest that are personal sites.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the "Proposed Deletion" was previously rejected then this is a controversial case. The best way of moving forward with this article should be discussed on the talk page. Eucraic (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An objection to WP:PROD does not make an article immune to WP:AFD discussions. Here is precisely the place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sure "no" will suffice. SITH (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Eucraic: As this is only your 7th edit on WP, you may not be familiar with WP:AFD for articles suspected of failing WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet any of the WP:ATHLETE criteria, none of the sources are simultaneously independent, reliable and in-depth. SITH (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:ATHLETE. The nasty WP:COI aroma does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Written by a single purpose editor Authenticboy15. Britishfinance (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Typical sports reporting fails to meet the GNG and fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Sandals1 (talk) 18:00, 13 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Ponit

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

Opting for AFD as I can only machine-translate Hindi sources, however, both such searches and ones in English yield little in the way of significant coverage that suggests passage of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little I could find on the subject or his "Orange Hindu Religious Organization". Probably why the article has no references. Britishfinance (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Briefly mentioned in The Difficult Flowering of Surinam: Ethnicity and Politics in a Plural Society [1], which also gives the Dutch name of the organization as well as information about its transition to a minor political party with a different name, about which more sources, though minor, can be found [2]. Supposedly it is covered in Mitrasing's The Border-conflict Between Surinam and Guiana, which I cannot access. Also, there is brief discussion of Ponit in Tien jaar Suriname, van afhankelijkheid tot gelijkgerechtigheid [3]. I don't think there's enough to merit a standalone article on this subject, but the field remains open for someone to create a properly-sourced article (or, more likely, a section in some other article) on the party/movement. Bakazaka (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and commentary by Bakazaka, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 05:59, 13 February 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) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penti

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

I rather doubt that the awards listed here are reliable for showing notability DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination but submit it for the year's vanity awards. Or don't we have those yet? -The Gnome (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --DannyS712 (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:24, 13 February 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 Viktor Bout. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samar Airlines

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

No sources, no real substance I'm not sure if the airline is even notable. When I searched for info it all seemed to be sourced from here which is somewhat comical, seeing how the information here is unsourced. Doradafan (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source suggests that this airline might warrant a mention at Viktor Bout, with a redirect of this title, but I can't find enough for independent notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article completely lacks sources, which is odd, given the airline has been around since 2004.TH1980 (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It really annoys me when people ignore what has gone on before in discussions. I showed by linking to a source what sort of "airline" this was, so can't we discuss this on that basis, rather than make comments that show that we haven't taken any notice of the previous discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added sources and it did exist with a colourful history. It does appear on some aviation searches of the country as one of their local airlines but was never a leading carrier. Given it's history, I think it is interesting enough to keep, however could also make the case for a Redirect to Viktor Bout article (I have added a line in his article to Samar). Britishfinance (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viktor Bout. The entity is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Covering it in broader context at the Viktor Bout article is a better service to our readers in any event. Bakazaka (talk) 02:02, 14 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naya Clinics

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

No evidence of any notability. Several of the sources are clearly the same regurgitated press release and others make no mention of the subject. Strong suggestion of COI or paid editing. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nominator about article sources, also WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Velella and Coolabahapple. Sheldybett (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. After cleaning away all the promotional material very little would remain. -The Gnome (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per promotion content. No prejudice against recreation --DannyS712 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 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) 01:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Next (programming block)

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

Generation Next was an umbrella term for a series of special reports on the BBC website and TV that lasted one week in 2006. Most media companies engage in this sort of grouped content series, and BBC runs several each year. This doesn't independently meet notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT as there are no secondary sources in the article (nor readily available) after over 12 years. It has no incoming links from any articles, either. -- Netoholic @ 18:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 18:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A one-week series of BBC programs where all the references are primary (i.e. the BBC). Can't find any non-primary RS on google that this week of programming was in any way notable (probably why all the referencing in this article is from the BBC). Why would anyone want to read this article? Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a depository of random listings, especially if they are not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 06:08, 13 February 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. With the additional references, consensus appears to indicate notability. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ölander

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

Article, completely unreferenced for ten full years without improvement, about a person notable primarily for "bridge-building between far-flung corners of international fandom". This could get him into Wikipedia if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG for it, but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any sources for it. Bearcat (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - I can't find anything on this guy.~~ Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman5676: I've started adding some information. What's been written about Ölander in English has typically been published in print; the available sources I'm aware of online are in Finnish or Swedish, for good reasons. /Julle (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is still a stub and fairly poor quality, i think you have provided enough to keep the article from being deleted. I also managed to find a mention of him in the book Science Fiction Rebels here [4]. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The majority of all sources will be in Finnish, some in Swedish, but there are some available in English as well. w:fi:Toni Jerrman wrote an essay called "It All Started with Tom Ölander" in the souvenir book for the 75th World Science Fiction Convention, which I don't have access to now but will have again in a couple of weeks. (The reference to Mike Ashley's work that I've added is more of a passing mention.) In other languages than English – in addition to what Leena Peltonen wrote in in Aikakone, and Ahrvid Engholm's obituary in Dagens Nyheter, both added as sources, Juhani Hinkkanen wrote another longer text about Ölander in Aikakone back when he died, and just for contextualisation I think this text from the Turku Science Fiction Society is worth reading. /Julle (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference to Jerrman's text now. /Julle (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This is a supposedly notable person in Finnland, yet the Finnish Wikipedia does not have anything on him. (Yes, I know. I'm simply pointing it out.) -The Gnome (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of things Finnish Wikipedia, being a mid-sized wiki (English Wikipedia has 72 times the number of active editors), doesn't have articles on yet. /Julle (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely irrelevant. It is reasonable to expect many articles in the English Wikipedia not to have their counterpart in the Finnish one. But we're talking about a subject that's supposedly notable (per Wikipedia's standards) in Finnland and not in the English-speaking world. Yet, there is no entry in the Finnish Wikipedia about him. Do you happen to have some explanation for that? Sizes don't matter! -The Gnome (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Size does matter – and is an important part of the explanation – in that article creation is far slower. I don't know how much cross-wiki article creation experience you have, but this is hardly unique. There are phenomena in Finland that lack articles in Finnish but have them in English, partly because you'll find editors from Finland who'll opt to edit in a more widely spoken language (e.g. English) instead of Finnish. There are Icelandic writers who have articles in Swedish Wikipedia but not in Icelandic, not because they lack notability but because Swedish Wikipedia has 20 times the number of editors, and sometimes that matters more than being the most likely language. Etc etc. Also, notability is global; a subject not more or less notable because one is active in a specific language area – it is notable or not. We're writing a global encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of the English-speaking world. Additionally, it's a stretch to assume that only the Finns should care: the sources in this article include a British writer (Mike Ashley (writer)) published by a British publisher (Cambridge University Press) and a Swedish newspaper (Dagens Nyheter).

(Also, Finland is bilingual. The country has two official languages: Finnish and Swedish.) /Julle (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Edelstein

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

This page is about a moderately high level corporate executive, but I think fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG notability guidelines, and may violate WP:NOTRESUME. From the first time I encountered this page, it struck me as more of an online "resume" (especially if you read early versions soon after creation) and has been tagged for improvement for several months. Many of the sources are inaccessible, and those that can be viewed are not very substantive - largely a mix of trade publications, press release reprints, corporate profiles, and other publicity material. Other sources are so old as to not be verifiable. Overall, it does not seem this subject has made an encyclopedic level of impact on their field. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 18:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Netoholic @ 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only major source I can find (outside of his own websites and online directories) is to Global Custodian [5], which is a trade newsletter (and not a leading one) in custody. There is no mention to him that I could find in any main newspaper (e.g. Financial Times, WSJ, New York Times etc.), which for a financial-person is a red-flag. I could take any "full partner" of Warburg Pincus and their name would appear in several of these papers (due to the scale of their deals). Article is very promotional and unlikely to be written by an unconnected edotir. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Manga Time Kirara. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirara Fantasia

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

insufficient references for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - sources at: [6], [7] were all I found on WP:BEFORE. Not suitible enough for GNG. iOS games are also rarely notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Manga Time Kirara would seem the best way of preserving content. Agreed that this article is not independently notable. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced contents to Manga Time Kirara, which could use some additional prose, frankly. No good reason to have a standalone article for this minimally noteworthy game. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 14 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Adkins

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

Biography of a person whose claim of notability (receiving the Order of Canada) is referenced only to an 18-word blurbette on the Order of Canada's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source media coverage. While the Order of Canada is a valid notability claim if the person can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to have any media coverage just because it verifies in the Order of Canada's own self-published database -- for one thing, "noted for his work in amateur theater" isn't very specific, and fails to say anything about what his work in amateur theater was: actor? playwright? stage manager? director? lighting designer? janitor? Even with a CM after his name, we still have to be able to say (and reference) quite a bit more about him than just "he existed" before an article is actually warranted. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canadian newspapers have coverage of him over many years. He died in 1982, and his obituary states that he had been stage manager of the Ottawa Little Theatre for more than 50 years (it gives his age, place of birth, when he arrived in Canada, the public service work he did, his wife and children, etc).[8] The first coverage is in a 1935 article with 7 paras about him and his work (as overseer and electrician), 'Back Stage Staff Work Hard For Drama's Success' (The Ottawa Journal [9], then 1942 ("Look For Man Behind Scenes When Play Is Great Success', The Ottawa Citizen (lighting, set designs, set changes) [10], 1945, 46, 47, 48 etc (shorter - a sentence in each article about scenery and stage sets, etc). 1949 - an article about a Teenage Community Corn Festival (which actually seems to have been a drama festival!) - Bill Adkins was directing six other stage managers; article says he has extensive stage managing experience with army shows, the Orpheus Society and the Little Theater [11]. 1951 - several articles, a para in one [12], two paras in an article about a show going to London to represent Eastern Ontario in the Dominion Drama Festival [13]. 1956 - 2 paras [14], 1958 - 1 para [15], and other shorter mentions of his work as stage manager and/or set designer. (Some shorter mentions as "William Adkins" eg in 1960 [16]). 1960, an article in the Ottawa Citizen on 15 October, 'Bill Adkins At L. Theater For 39 Years' [17], and another in the Ottawa Journal on 3 December, 'Bill Adkins Honored' (with a Canadian Drama award "in recognition of outstanding contributions to Canadian theater") [18] (seems to have actually been awarded in March 1961 [19]). (Also reported in the Ottawa Citizen [20] and The Gazette, Montreal [21] 1963 - 'Faces of Ottawa - William Adkins' [22] - about 16 paras, including where he was born, one of 5 brothers, service in WWI, theatre work in WWII, etc). 1967 - a para in an article about 'Ottawa Little Theater' [23]. 1970 - the Little Theater burned down - 3 sentences about Bill Adkins in one piece [24], 1 sentence and 3 paras of quotes from him in another [25]. 1971 - a photo of Adkins and one of the directors at the site of the new Little Theater [26]. 1972 - a sentence in an article on the opening of the new theater [27]. More 1 sentence mentions in reviews of plays in the early-mid 1970s. Also, in 1973, he was among the first people appointed as Members of the Order of Canada [28] (article about the development of the Canadian honors system, with the rank of Member intended to honor "Canadians who have made outstanding contributions to their professions, local organizations and communities"). Another article about nominations says he was "active in the Dominion Drama Festival" [29]. He was described as a "legendary character" in a 2012 article about theater in Ottawa [30]. Certainly enough to compose an article with, if he is considered notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will say Keep based on the coverage I found above, and expand the article based on the information in those sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Rebecca Green's excellent work. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 6 February 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 Thundermug (band). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wyn Anderson

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

Biography of a person whose only stated claim of notability is being associated with other people. Notability is not inherited, however, so simply managing a notable rock band is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any reliable source coverage about him -- but the references here aren't getting him over the bar, as they include one (deadlinked) profile of the band, one still-live profile of the band on an unreliable site, and one dead piece of content about a reggae musician on a Wordpress blog. None of this counts for anything at all toward making Wyn Anderson notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I can't find anything better anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I have a feeling that Anderson also had something to do with other bands besides rock group, Thundermug and reggae artist Gregory Isaacs (some real diversity there). He may have done other work with Axe Records. If it doesn't go that way to save, could we possibly preserve the history and have it re-directed to Thundermug?
Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he had done other work besides Thundermug and Gregory Isaacs (an unverified claim at present), the notability test would still hinge on how well you could reference him to reliable source coverage about him, not just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage about the artists he'd worked with or unreliable sources of any stripe. I've already looked for real media coverage that might bolster his notability, and I can't find any. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thundermug (band) There's a lack of significant independent coverage about him and no indication of notability meriting a separate article, plus notability can't be inherited. Seems to have been integral to Thundermug's success and is already mentioned in that article, so a redirect seems best to me. Papaursa (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Deleted because of pervasive copyright violations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Population health management concept

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

This is not really an encyclopedia article, rather it looks to be a random assortment of paragraphs containing the phrase "population health management." Contested proposed deletion. ... discospinster _talk 17:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete It's a copyvio and if we removed that, it would be one sentence and wouldn't make any sense. Praxidicae (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Speedy or not the article subject is (poorly) covered in Health management system. – S. Rich (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Singh

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that he Hasn't played in a fully professional league. This remains valid. The article does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been a WP:G4. Trillfendi (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trillfendi, this is not applicable for G4, since PROD deletions can always be reverted by WP:REFUND. While this wasn't refunded, it technically acts as one as a recreation over a PROD deletion. Only AFD deletions are tied to G4. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then. He obviously doesn’t have significant coverage from reliable sources. Nor does he meet NSPORT. Trillfendi (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - Several references have been added. Harry plays as a full time professional in Maltese premier league. The most credible reference comes from the Maltese FA Mahaprabhu 108 18:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 10 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Dobrik

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

This subject is not notable. Coverage is mostly trivial and passing mentions. There is not enough significant coverage about the subject in WP:RS. Notability is not based on popularity. See argument on talk page it is about a person who is very popular. Also notability is not based on inheritance. There are un-sourced claims of celebrities subject has interviewed on youtube. These do not denote notability either. The number of other you-tubers known by this subject is also not important. The article is very promotional and is not suited for wikipedia. Z359q (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 13:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m honestly surprised this page managed to get created. The draft was trash (I would know I had to correct it). While he’s a popular YouTuber and controversial DACA recipient, there are absolutely 0 reliable sources about him. Guy breaks up with girl isn’t news. Someone also removed some factual BLP information. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have the BBC [31], Wired Magazine [32], The Verge [33], Sky News [34], the Evening Standard [35] etc. So I question your "zero reliable sources". There is also The Post [36] (but you can question that as a student newspaper) or the non-RS Daily Mail [37]. I didn't dig through the 11 hits on Google Scholar, but the person does look notable as a "famous Youtube personality" or whatever. Certainly it was not clear cut enough to delete this as a G4, so I declined the speedy. —Kusma (t·c) 19:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero reliable sources to substantiate notability. Common sense. That’s what this is about. BBC’s Newsbeat section is their Page Six for social media and gossip. Guy breaks up with girl isn’t BBC’s actual news. Trillfendi (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it’s extremely rude to call the draft trash. All Wikipedia articles have to start somewhere. Saying that you had to fix it is extremely false. Many editors worked to make it what it is now. (The reason I’m so mad about your statements is that I created it, so thanks for that.) The sources listed are of reliability, and since you are the “fixer” of the page, maybe you could go out and find some new sources? Just a suggestion. Oh well, what do I know? It’s not like I’ve been editing Wikipedia pages for years or whatever.VoltronUniverse

This is not an article about Dobrik, but this Forbes article clearly assumes most people reading stories about YouTube know Dobrik, which does indicate notability to me. I'll just say keep at this point. —Kusma (t·c) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG, as per Kusma. Bondegezou (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kusma and the fact that he gets some hits in google scholar [38]. I think Wiki is certainly outdated in the way it treats internet celebrities; not our fault but i don't think old media sources know how to accurately cover a mainly young phenomenon. Because under any definition this guy's dedicated audience is bigger then 90% of entertainers on this site. If any other entertainer had ten million dedicated followers they'd have tons of sources. It's just the media seems to have a weak spot covering internet celebrities. GuzzyG (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Kusma as the article sites more sources than some articles of other entertainer sources on this website. Saying there is not enough sources is not fair considering other articles (e.g. Sasha Sloan) that provide less information about the person and provide less sources. If there was not enough sources as a biography of a living person per the amount of information, Bots would automatically alert editors to that. This article is about an influencer with 10million+ fans and describes his career and the group of people he is involved with. I say keep. Thanks, VoltronUniverse (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources indicate meeting GNG.. Specifically, the forbes article cited by Kusma implies that people are already familiar with Dobrik. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge & redirect to Turning Point USA. IT can always be spun back out again should it achieve lasting coverage. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turning Point UK

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

It may have got a degree of publicity dues to its launch, and nature. But at this time it is far to early to say if it will have any lasting notability or impact. Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does notability have to be lasting? Rathfelder (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, yes per WP:LASTING. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 22:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder and MJL: Actually WP:LASTING is a part of the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline. This topic is about an organization, not an event. As such, WP:LASTING is not applicable to the topic. For more information about the notability of organizations, see WP:ORG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I am just surprised this exists. Having said that, my own personal dislike for TPUSA will probably bias me here. Therefore, I will recuse myself from this vote (or !vote-- I forget which). ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In one respect this is the point of my AFD, this has gotten this amount of publicity because of (and directly related to) its links to its US parent. There is (at this time) no evidence of truly independent notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, I can see that, but I'd also totally delete the Charlie Kirk article if given ~~the chance~~ a likeminded consensus for the same reason (at least at this moment in time). I'd probably would want to redirect it to TPUSA as well since that is the only thing he's known for, so it's best for me to stay away from this group of subjects because I'd throw the legitimacy of the process into doubt. Personal bias and all that. I'd rather be safe than sorry. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not motivated by dislike, there are plenty of things I dislike more then this lot (is there more then one?), that have articles I would never delete. The issue is I do not see this having any impact or (after a few months) being little more then three students in the union bar moaning about Brexit. This is why I mentioned lasting impact. This could be merged with the parent article with zero loss of information (as we have none). But outside of this Kirk Character nothing and no one surrounding this is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate, we know more about the US head then the UK head. Are there any interviews with Mr George Farmer, pictures? Was he at the launch (if not why not?), does anyone in fact give a flying circus about him?Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That guidance is about events, not organizations.Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant WP:SUSTAINED.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to its parent organisation. It's got a burst of coverage for its launch that makes it a likely search term and gives us some sources so its worth mentioning but there is nowhere near enough (yet) to sustain an independent article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The test is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We now have the Times, the BBC, The Telegraph, the Spectator, New Statesman, the Guardian, the Indy, not to mention the Sun. So much as I dislike the organisation, it's clearly notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - non-notable spin-off attempt organization that fails WP:GNG with a recentist coverage. Organization hasn't gained any coverage for their major activities and events in the UK. At present time, unworthy of an article that would possibly be a PR magnet. Organization will probably have no lasting notability or impact. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 20:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Futurism is not part of the consideration of notability. The organisation has a lot of coverage of its existence, even if it does nothing.Rathfelder (talk) 13:18, 10 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shivam Shankar Singh

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

Does not meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. —Avenue X at Cicero (t · c) sends his regards @ 16:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I am the creator of the original article. The person in question is quoted in several Indian and and international newspapers and magazines. One of India's largest magazines, The Caravan recently did a feature on him. ^[1] He has also been prominently featured in stories in Time Magazine ^[2] and quoted by Nikkei Asian Review ^[3]. His book on Indian Elections is also being published by Penguin.^[4] IndianPolitics-Bihar (talk) 07:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://caravanmagazine.in/politics/shivam-shankar-singh-as-told-to-bjp-data
^ http://time.com/5512032/whatsapp-india-election-2019/
^ https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/WhatsApp-grapples-with-outsized-influence-ahead-of-Asia-polls
^ https://penguin.co.in/book/politics/how-to-win-an-indian-election/

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As with IndianPolitics-Bihar, the article clearly meets WP:GNG and he is a creator of the article, as well as sigifanct coverage on several Indian and International newspapers. Sheldybett (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, "quoted by" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at all — people get over our notability tests by being the subject of coverage, not by giving soundbite to the media in articles about other subjects, so the Time and Nikkei Asian Review sources listed above are not helping. Secondly, people don't get over our notability tests by being the author of their own sources, either — The Caravan doesn't help to establish his notability, because it represents a source in which he's writing about himself in the first person, not a source in which other people are writing about him in the third person. Thirdly, people are not handed an automatic free pass over our notability criteria for writers just because the book's existence metaverifies itself on the non-independent primary source website of its publisher — the notability test for a writer is independent coverage about his writing, such as newspapers or magazines publishing reviews of the book, not just the fact that the book exists. This is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to make a political backroom organizer notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia — we are not looking for journalism about other things that quotes him in passing, or journalism by him, or his books metaverifying their own existence on online bookstores, we are looking for third-party journalism about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Only mentioned the Time article and stuff because WP:GNG states “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Many of the articles he’s quoted in dedicate a significant portion to coverage of his work, including the Economic Times and Time Magazine piece. Links on his resignation in Hindi are dedicated coverage of him and so are some other articles already referenced or found on google. IndianPolitics-Bihar (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Also seems like a fairly obvious COI problem. Skirts89 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just over half of the sources are in English, and NONE of these support notability. I do not read Hindi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:54, 6 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thundermarch

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

I am unable to find substantive coverage of this topic in independent reliable sources. Most search results are youtube videos and promotional links. The sources in the article are a local web news source whose language inspires no confidence in its reliability, and an advertising platform. Delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vanamonde93 lacks independent coverage but it can be mentioned in the article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Institute of Technology, Silchar as they are the organisers and venue, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only content worth salvaging in this article is the existence of this event, which is already in the parent article, and which I have now added a reference for. There's nothing else here that is properly verifiable, and therefore nothing worth salvaging. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable event from an engineering college due to lack of coverage in independent reliable media. I agree with Vanamonde that there is nothing worth salvaging. --DBig Xrayᗙ 19:50, 12 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surf's Up! At Banzai Pipeline

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. jps (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strange timing that this has been nominated for deletion when a person heavily connected with this album, surf music producer / 911 Truther Tony Hilder aka Anthony J. Hilder has also been nominated for deletion. Is there a connection? Karl Twist (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable album. It appears in the following books, Surfin' guitars: instrumental surf bands of the sixties by Robert J. Dalley, The Listener - Volume 90 - Page 796, Surfing, the Ultimate Pleasure by Leonard Lueras, Pop Surf Culture: Music, Design, Film, and Fashion from the Bohemian Surf Boom by Brian Chidester, Domenic Priore. It was re-released by Sundazed Records in 1995. See page 84. Also mentioned in Billboard. See "Released by Sundazed". Also reviewed in Pipeline, a surf magazine. Karl Twist (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see the album discussed in [39][40], reviews in the Pipeline magazine (issue 29 page 45) and Reverb central. Not a great haul of sources, but it's worth noting that the album was released in 1963 (therefore archived sources on the internet are harder to find), but it was still discussed in the sources which include the 1973 Listener magazine (BBC, UK) and the 2008 book, multiple sources that suggest sustained interest in the album in the wider world, therefore passing WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:50, 6 February 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. No consensus for a specific outcome has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curve (payment card)

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

Does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article: It should be not be deleted as with 300,000 customers, Curve is a WP:NORG

I have addressed the concern raised that "significant Reliable Sources coverage not found." I have gone through and checked every sentence is attributed to a reliable source, adding in citations as required.
I have addressed the concern "What comes up is passing mentions, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP ." All sentences in this article have accurate citations from reliable sources.

Andydangerfield (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your second point doesn't address the concern. Please see WP:ORGIND. Nobody is saying the sources aren't reliable or that the extracts aren't accurate. What is being said is that there is no significant (more than a passing mention) intellectually independent (not relying on announcements/quotations/company-produced info) content in the references. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the sources establishing notability that Andydangerfield has provided. However, the fact that it has 300,000 customers is irrelevant; it could have ten million customers and still not be notable. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NORG. Also per sources added by Andydangerfield. Skirts89 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment: the content added by Andydangerfield amounts to WP:PROMO directory listing, i.e.

"In July 2017, Curve rolled out a feature on the app allowing users to retroactively change their selected payment card for a transaction as old as 14 days.[13][14] After attracting a waiting list of 50,000 people, Curve fully launched to UK consumers in early 2018.[15] By the end of 2018, it had 300,000 customers across Europe.[16]"

Having 300,000 customers is not an indicator of notability. Andydangerfield also failed to mention at this AfD that he's an employee at Curve. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I have removed paragraph of the number of current customers due to debate in this AfD discussion as to whether this is an indicator of notability. All other sentences cite notable sources.
It says quite clearly in my bio that I am a content manager for Curve. I am happy mention that wherever else appropriate. I’m new to editing on Wikipedia so appreciate any guidance on this. My only aim is to ensure this article is a fair and accurate reflection of Curve and I am happy to amend anything deemed inappropriate in the article. Apologies, forgot to sign previous comment so re-added this comment as a signed comment. Thanks Andydangerfield (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andy; another user has removed your unsigned comment to ensure the thread remains easily readable - if you forget to sign in the future, you can always edit the comment to add it, you don't need to repeat the post. They have also removed your repeated vote for the same reason - in AfD's you should not vote more than once; should you have any more top level comments to add, you can head them with Comment - if you change your vote due to being swayed by new evidence or arguments you should strike out your previous vote with <s>Stricken text</s> before posting your new one. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic startup article that fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. No real information outside the launch. References are a mix of reviews, funding news and business article churnalism. scope_creep^Talk 15:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are all either based on company announcements or the content is not in-depth or significant. References fail WP:NCORP - specifically WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH - topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in national newspapers, MoneyWeek and Which? is just enough for notability. Peter James (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, but coverage in national newpapers is not part of the criteria for establishing notability. It is about the type of coverage. The coverage in Moneyweek and Which is all based on the company announcement that launched the card. You will see a lot of "coverage" at the end of Jan and beginning of Feb 2018, all in "reliable sources", but failing WP:ORGIND as it is also all based on the company announcement of the launch of the new app. For example, the Irish Times, TechCrunch, Finextra, nomadgate, crowdfundinsider ... tons of coverage on the launch. Fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a difference between a review and a press release. Obviously reviews are likely to be of new products or services, but coverage is selective: many products and services are not reviewed or written about in national newspapers and well known magazines read by many people. Although these is the most significant coverage, there is some from other reliiable sources before and after the launch. Peter James (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Classic fail of WP:ORGIND. It is generic news associated with a startup. scope_creep^Talk 10:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - None of the references are "reviews" in the context of somebody getting and using the card and writing about their experiences. Instead, the references are regurgitating the information provided by the company in terms of (1) What it is (2) the benefits (3) the costs. This is classic churnalism and the WP:NCORP guidelines were explicitly tightened up last year to exclude these types of articles for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've removed a large portion of the sources on the page for being from tabloids or unreliable publications, but there are several good articles that focus on the company in depth, enough in my mind to clearly pass the harsh standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. I added some Financial Times coverage of a lawsuit, and articles such as this one in TechCrunch focus on the company at large, not just the launch itself. Also staff coverage in Forbes which isn't all positive. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://techcrunch.com is too indiscriminate to meet WP:CORPDEPTH, while [www.forbes.com/sites www.forbes.com/sites] is a user-submitted area, not editorial content. FT is a passing mention. This is still a directory listing on a nn org that is trying to use Wikipedia to promote itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to be clear, the Financial Times article is not "coverage of a lawsuit", but an article based on a blog post on Curve's website, various tweet from purported Curve users and a statement from American Express. There is no original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject and fails WP:ORGIND. I agree with the above on the TechCrunch article (based on the PR surrounding the launch of their app in the UK and also based on "a call with Curve founder and CEO"), meets the definition of chrunalism and therefore also fails ORGIND. I also agree with the above that the Forbes article is from their "sites" section which is explicitly excluded for the establishment of notability in WP:NCORP and is classified as "Dependent coverage". HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree most of the articles count in part as churnalism (most business articles do), but scattered throughout the fully admissible TechCrunch and Forbes articles (corporate sellouts, yes, but still known for fact-checking and hardly as ridiculous as the Daily Mail or Enquirer), there is enough journalistic perspective to show the topic is notable. Concerning the advertising, the trivial or promotional details can be chopped out quickly by a discerning and neutral editor, and so no need to delete on those grounds alone. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some new sources for perusing. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhim Shubber, May 25, 2016 It’s no fun when Amex throws your startup a Curve ball, The Financial Times
February 17, 2016 New Card Allows Users to Use Amex Anywhere - Without Paying Surcharge, The Daily Telegraph
Steve O'Hear, January 2019 Amex blocks Curve as the fintech startup vows to fight 'anti-competetitive' decision, TechCrunch

The first is generic, it is introducing the card to readers of the FT and introduces nothing that is not covered by other churnalism. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND

The second one is exactly the same format, it describes the card, then the founders, then the funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND

The third is real news, but it exactly the type of news that comes from a startup. Startup news is covered by WP:NCORP. That was part of the reason it was written. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with scope_creep. Please take a read of WP:NCORP (especially the WP:ORGIND section) to understand in more detail why those sources so not establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 10 February 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. Substantial work was done to this article during the AfD, and every comment after that work began has been to keep, so I'm down-weighting the early delete !votes. If anybody still feels this should be deleted, no prejudice against bringing it back for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caesar's planned invasion of the Parthian Empire

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

As the title says, a planned invasion (i.e. it didn't take place). The Julius Caesar article already mentions these plans, so I don't think any segment of the article's only sentence is worthy of being merged into another article. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Author). There are similar articles in Wikipedia. Like this one: Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom. More information can be added to the article. Like number of his army and legions, which was greatest army Rome yet seen. Amir El Mander (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Amir El Mander: Are you willing to further expand this article? - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LouisAragon: Maybe. Also others can help in expanding it. Amir El Mander (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir I could perhaps later help with the expanding if you can write down some good sources that aren't too hard to access. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Plutarch's CaesarAmir El Mander (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eh Parthia is simply mentioned 3 times in that source, without going into any detail. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are plenty of sources alright, but most of the ones I've seen are mostly composed of what-ifs and don't have much detail on Caesar's plans. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for now. I suspect this could become a decent article, on par with the Napoleon one, with info on the background, aims of the invasion and why it didn't go ahead. But for now, it's just a one-liner that doesn't add anything more than what's in the main article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to Julius Caesar article that already mentions it. This is barely a two-line stub and there is no need for it; it adds nothing. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy . As presently construed this is a poor fork, with less content on the subject matter, than Antony's Parthian War#Background, Roman–Parthian Wars#Roman Republic vs Parthia. I'm not sure an article on Caesar's plans can be developed (as I'm unsure there are in-depth sources on his plans beyond him having such plans) - however we would expect a spinout on such a plan to be more detailed than the parent article(s) on the subject - which in this case the present article is not. Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or userfy if the creator wants it. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There can be nothing further to say on the subject than we have here. It might also be mentioned in the Roman-Parthian Wars article, but I see no prospect of this ever becoming more than a stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. While the invasion did not happen, nobody seems to deny the plans were made; if the invasion had happened, it would have been on a material scale. Thus the topic is notable and acceptable for a WP article (check). The article is a stub but is referenced with a basic stub structure (check). Therefore, while I would love to see more content (and ultimately a full article), I how can I object to existence of a properly referenced stub on a notable topic? Many great WP articles started in this way. Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Updating to Strong Keep post update of article.

Keep. I am unaware of the Wikipedia policy for deleting pages on notable topics, becasue they are stubs. I do not want a page for every concept, noun or failed plan; but I think all of us here would one day love to read this article. I will help how I can.(Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment. Some great work by Dushan Jugum in developing this article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant question in AFD is not whether the article has been developed, but whether it can be developed. And it sounds like there's enough information out there to write a decent article that wouldn't need to be merged into another. If memory serves, Caesar had already nominated a magister equitum for the campaign when he was assassinated, which suggests a fairly advanced stage of planning. P Aculeius (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, now has (just?) enough references to reflect this (and it could be argued enough to bring it out of the unreferenced/too few references quagmire that is stubbels into the wonderful article start journey but i won't:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added two more refs, some text and de-stubbed. It still needs work and lots of it, but I feel many of the legitimate complaints about the page have been addressed. Sorry for editing the projects on the talk page, but I have been told it is best practise in such cases. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:09, 13 February 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 all. WP:G3.Just Chilling (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riverside Girls

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

This is almost certianly a part of a walled garden hoax. There was only one song called Leave Right Now to have made the UK charts and that was in 2003 a song by Will Young. There are absolutely no sources found any where about the group the song or the album. I shall be bundling the the pages for the same reasons. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: definite hoax, as a check of the UK and Ireland chart archives will reveal no such group has ever charted, contrary to the claims in the articles. Article creator twice attempted to revert their hoax by blanking the pages, but was reverted. I think these articles could be deleted under CSD G3. Richard3120 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all as WP:G3. Many entities called Riverside Girls have existed, but a 1997 band appearing on Top of the Pops? Blue Peter? No. Good catch, nominator. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 6 February 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. There is clear consensus that players who scrape over the line of the SNG and can be shown to have essentially ended their careers are not presumed to pass GNG unless clear sources can be presented. Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phakamani Mngadi

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

Article about semi-pro footballer who made 1 substitute's appearance (a total of 3 minutes of play) with a fully-pro club. The article so narrowly reaches the presumption of notability at NFOOTBALL that without satisfying the GNG it cannot be viewed as notable (plenty of AfD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Oscar Otazu, Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Aleksandr Salimov, Andrei Semenchuk, Artyom Dubovsky, Cosmos Munegabe, Marios Antoniades, Scott Sinclair, Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer, Matheus Eccard, Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Metodija Stepanovski, Linas Klimavičius, Takumi Ogawa, Nicky Fish and Andrei Nițu, amongst others). All of the online coverage of this person in secondary sources appears to be transfer news, statistics databases or match reports (e.g., routine coverage), and there are a handful of brief articles published by his employers (Eupen or Kaizer Chiefs) which I don't believe are secondary sources. I can't see how this article satisfies the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I noticed that this article was previously included in a bundled AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ntuthuko Radebe. However, the discussion did not consider his 3 minutes of fame as that occurred after the AfD was closed. Jogurney (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY .SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 24 years old.Not players who have retired.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mngadi has been without a club since May 2017 when he was released by Eupen. I wouldn't assume he is "currently playing" without a source (I found that he had an unsuccessful 2-week trial with Golden Arrows in August 2018, but there are no other signs that he has continued a footballing career). Moreover, I never suggested NFOOTBALL provides a preumption of non-notability - I agreed that it provides a presumption of notability - just that it can be rebutted, as I think it should be in this instance. Jogurney (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jogurney; there is plenty of past AFD consensus which shows that technically scraping by on NFOOTBALL is not enough with a comprehensive GNG failure (as is the case here). The 'allowance' we grant players is usually reserved for youngsters who are at the beginning of the career; as Jogurney says, given he has not had a club for 2 years it is likely his career has ended, with nothing to show for it that merits and article on Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 14:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Highlands Park coach Da Gama says ""they have used the international break to work on some areas where they have struggled‚ as well as look at potential new players.These include former Sundowns defender Mzikayise Mashaba‚ ex-Kaizer Chiefs wingers Phakamani Mngadi and Abia Nale‚ as well as former Ajax Cape Town forward Tendai Ndoro‚ who is into his third week with the team.Nobody has been signed yet‚ though I have left the Tendai Ndoro negotiations up to [club CEO] Larry Brookstone." As per this article on 12 September 2018. Being out of contract does not mean retired for 24 year old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This simply means that Mngadi had two unsuccessful trials during August and September 2018. It suggests he is not performing at a level where a fully-pro team would contract his services (not to mention he literally has only played 3 minutes at that level in his entire career). It does not suggest he is "currently playing" at a professional level (or even at a semi-professional level). Jogurney (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFOOTY shouldn't supersede WP:GNG, sources seem a little run of the mill, Govvy (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have pointed out, he passes WP:NFOOTY, and passing a WP:SNG is typically sufficient. And for whatever it's worth, he has two appearances with fully pro clubs - he played in a Belgian Cup match between two WP:FPL teams in 2016-17 as well. Smartyllama (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY with flying colors, having played in two professional leagues. Editors cannot override consensuses and target stubs for deletion just because they feel like it. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am following long-standing consensus - check out some of the many AfDs I linked above. Jogurney (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY. Appreciate whats been said above, but deleting articles in this way just brings inconsistency as it doesn't have any real effect on the supposed wider issue - evidently, otherwise there wouldn't be editors questioning it here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Claver. R96Skinner (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-pros are inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman and others above. In this instance, the NFOOTY presumption is rebutted by the lack of sources to satisfy GNG, the very low playing time, and the two years that have passed since he's had a club. Levivich 01:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, and had fully professional games in 2 professional leagues.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He played 3 minutes in one fully-pro league. He also played 9 minutes in a cup match against D2 Roeselaere (cup matches between clubs from fully-pro leagues are considered roughly the same under NFOOTBALL). So, he has a total of 12 minutes of "fame." Jogurney (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems notable to me, considering his appearance is with Kaizer Chiefs, who are one of the largest teams in the Sub-Sahara, and Eupen is a D1 club.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:01, 13 February 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. If somebody wants to recreate the title as a redirect to List of road interchanges in the United States, that can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interchanges in Pennsylvania

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

Unnecessary page. Interchanges are already mentioned in each respected Route article. Other states do not have their own list of interchanges. Tinton5 (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst merge into List of road interchanges in the United States. The fact of interchanges being mentioned in each of the two or three route articles they belong to suggests that having a separate article or list-article item about each of them is a good idea. The separate article or list-article item can have photo(s) and more info, then be linked from each of the 2 or 3 route articles. There obviously exist individually notable interchanges, and a list of them in one state can be notable, and the U.S.-wide list is obviously hugely valid (and was resoundingly supported in an AFD previously). It is an editorial matter of whether to split out a state-level list or not. I tend to think it is better to keep this split out now. --Doncram (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The list-article is substantial and includes references at the end. Coverage of several interchanges is quite extensive. Having a list-article of them probably heads of creation of separate articles for each one. It would be fair to tag the list-article for more specific inline references, though. --Doncram (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I'm not a big fan of interchange articles (I prefer to mention interchange details in the road articles), this article does serve a purpose to provide information about some of the more notable interchanges in the state that would be too little for a standalone article. Dough4872 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An awful amount of original research and self-published sources (of what few sources exist) in the article but the general consensus per WP:ROADOUTCOMES is that highway interchanges aren't inherently notable and generally (bar a few exceptions in the notability policy) should be mentioned only in the respective highway article. Also per nom that no similar article exists for other US states. Ajf773 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wp:ROADOUTCOMES says nothing about interchanges. If you don't like numerous separate articles about individual interchanges, this list-article should be kept, to head off their being created separately. There is pretty clearly enough material for several of the interchanges to sustain separate articles (though the sources are either at the end of the article or need to be added). In other words, if the outcome here is "delete", I expect I or other editors would create a raft of new articles. :) --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "what links here" shows that there are a lot of inbound links to this list-article from highway articles and elsewhere. These include redirects for the following interchanges, presumably each to their specific list-item, for:

Mid-County Interchange
Eisenhower Interchange
Throop Dunmore Interchange
Interstate 279 Interchange
Mount Nittany Interchange
Lehigh Valley Interchange
Pocono Interchange
Clarks Summit Interchange

These are likely candidates to have separate articles. And, if there is a category of such interchanges in Pennsylvania, then it would be justified to have a list-article corresponding to them, to summarize about them and provide photos and redlinks and more, per wp:CLNT. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it does say: Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not as a separate article, except for some highly notable ones unless in your opinion an exit and an interchange aren't the same thing. All of those links redirect to this article. If they were notable they would probably have at least some independent and reliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um. What i said, interchanges are not covered in ROADOUTCOMES, and sure, the list-article could be tagged for more specific inline references about each of the separate interchanges that have extensive coverage. I probably won't reply more than here and once below. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these are likely candidates to have separate articles, the sections they redirect to in the current article are unreferenced. I checked for sources for a couple and found no signficant coverage. If uncited statements were removed from the article we would have very little left.--Pontificalibus 13:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is the criteria for inclusion on this page? It says major interchanges, but doesn't describe what major means. I have a feeling that if "major" was defined, the list would be four times as long as it is. It is far better to mention the interchanges on the respective highway articles and move on. –Fredddie ™ 15:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of criteria for list-item inclusion should take place at the Talk page of the list-article. Clearly IMO some of them would be individually notable, others should be "list-item notable" (with addition of specific inline references) and maybe some need not be mentioned (though a standard would have to be defined). --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these interchanges need to be cut out of the list; some of them are simple cloverleaf interchanges between two roads. Generally, for an interchange to be included in the list I say it should have a complex nonstandard design (not a basic cloverleaf, trumpet, etc.) and involve a junction between at least three routes. If we do not want to keep this list, some of the more notable interchanges (such as Mid-County Interchange) can be split into their own articles. Dough4872 04:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're not necessarily disagreeing, but to continue the thought, from "if we do not want to keep this list", then we will see creation of separate articles, justifying re-creation of the list-article. So let's just keep the list. I probably won't reply more than here and once above. --Doncram (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced that this is a notable topic. Do we have any independent reliable discussing "interchanges in Pennsylvania" in detail? I would have no objection to the creation of a navigational list article in the future if we end up having seperate articles on several interchanges in Pennsylvania. Pontificalibus 13:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is extensive information available, including this PennDOT site with interchange drawings for each interchange; interchanges lists and locations and other info at PA Turnpike.Com, news articles like this Bucks County local news article about a turnpike interchange opening about a $450 million project to create just one interchange with flyovers (?). With argument

“Without a doubt, a crucial project benefit besides congestion relief and mobility is the economic boost for Bucks County and the entire southeastern Pennsylvania region,” Commissioner Deon said. “The completed interchange could support thousands of new jobs in existing industries in addition to the more than 500 sustained construction jobs we’ve already seen. From a market attractiveness standpoint, we’re looking at employment growth of thousands of regional jobs along with hundreds of millions of dollars in new business sales.”

these are big projects, big dollars, addressing big costs of congestion. There are lots of hits on the general topic of "pennsylvania interchanges" and the like, and there will be lots more when searching by names for each of the individual ones, and such coverage adds up. Ping User:Pontificalibus.

Maybe I led this AFD discussion astray... let's not force the split of this article into multiple articles in order to justify recreation of the combined article. That is silly, just keep one list-article. For those who have opinions about the relatively lesser interchanges covered, take that to the Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PennDOT and Turnpike.Com, while presenting useful information, do not contribute to demonstrating notability. They are not independent sources as they're involved in operating and maintaining the roads. If such information was deemed to be sufficiently worthy of note that an independent source thought it worthwhile to publish, then that would help establish notability, but I haven't found such a source. The local news article you quote may help establish the notability of that particular interchange, although it does rely heavily on quotes from PA Turnpike officials and reads like a press release. --Pontificalibus 09:25, 10 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sodbury Players

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

Source searches turn up little other than affiliated sources such as ticket outlets. Other than a passing mention in a "things to do" article in a minor publication, the most I could find is this article in a local paper. I don't think organisational notability has been demonstrated due to the lack of depth of coverage. SITH (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No single significant RS (outside of the local Gazette). Article has been around for over a decade and the only reference is to their own website. Britishfinance (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 12:00, 13 February 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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is an absence of consensus, and a reasonable reliance on sources for keeping. bd2412 T 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Storonsky

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

Founder of Revolut, a fintech startup. Does not appear to be notable independently from his company. Sources are only routine media coverage plus two interviews. I propose deleting or merging into Revolut. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable and really nothing worth merging. Џ 12:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Revolut) - while there's a few sources around the place, when removing the non-independent aspects (often interviews in reliable sources), there's not sufficient coverage of the man. Usually the non-interview but is mostly about the company itself. I don't think there's anything of particular note worthy of being merged, but founders are a reasonable redirect point. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup and additional sourcing but person is noteworthy based on even a cursory Google search. This is one of the largest current startups in the UK and one of the most noteworthy in Europe. Perhaps MinotaurX can help by adding more sources. Misterpottery (talk) 09:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: - as the one !voting Keep, and saying the sources are visible from a cursory search, it's usually expected to count it as a supported !vote if you can point us towards a couple of good sources, even if you don't add them to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: This is a discussion about Nikolay Storonsky article, not about Revolut. Storonsky is not a startup but a person. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: Sure offhand I see some good ones. [41] is written by a forbes staff writer (not a contributor like some of their other spam). [42] - paywalled but a featured interview in a top UK newspaper. [43] - him speaking at a major US tech conference. [44] - BBC interview discussing his personal decisions taken when starting Revolut. Misterpottery (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: ALL of your links are articles about Revolut. The fist one is an interview - please, hope you are not arguing that someone is notable and should have an article in an encyclopaedia because he/she was interviewed by a journalist? The Times is another interview! The TechCrunch article is, technically, a promo of the speakers at their own conference. BBC is still another (video) interview and again focused on Revolut, not on its founder.

Please, PLEASE read the General Notability Guideline, especially the part independent from the subject. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: General Notability Guideline seems applicable. Like an artist with a single work there are parts here that specifically focus on him and his noteworthy background that would be indicative of any company with a high profile founder. Many many pages fulfil such WP:GNG guidelines. Look at Sundar Pichai or John Collison or Travis Kalanick for example. All are notable singularly for their success in one company and nearly every piece is focused on Google. Nikolay has specific coverage that meets WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NTEMP, and wouldn't be useful to include in the Revolut article in my opinion. Misterpottery (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Misterpottery: I think you are trolling now. I quoted you the policies, and especially, sourcing policies, and instead of acknowledging you keep arguing that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Sorry, it is quite a stretch of the imagination to compare Storonsky to Pichai. I am done explaining. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Revolut per nom. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do think this article needs significant improvement and some POV fixing, but after some research I think subject passes WP:GNG. I will be editing the article to add some articles I found on Financial Times, Forbes, and Business Insider. Skirts89 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep There are lots of decent quality sources (per "News" button above) with interviews on this individual. WP has a long list of tech-BLPs whose accomplishments and coverage would not come close to Storonsky's. Not fair to simply merge him with his company. Britishfinance (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. How editors can suggest to Keep this (and "strongly" too) on the basis mainly of interviews is beyond me. Plus, we get the tired ol' "there's also other stuff around" argument. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: But the interviews are what gives him notability (and this article is not comprehensive in listing these interviews). This is not a case of a "best of the worst" type arguement; my point is that WP has many other valid tech–BLPs who are less notable than this BLP.Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Public figurehead of a significant fintech company in the UK, which is currently in the press at least once per week. Google News is showing 10 references to him in the last month alone, including in Quartz, Telegraph and Business Insider. On top of that I'm seeing standalone interviews in Telegraph, FT, Business Insider and Forbes. ScepticalChymist (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this club fails notability standards. Just Chilling (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skagit Bicycle Club

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

Ineligible for PROD as one was declined years ago. This fails WP:NORG, the only reason I didn't opt for {{db-club}} is that it uses the word "major", which is a credible claim of significance. SITH (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Not a single solid RS on this organization. How an article on a 200-member organisation survived over a decade on WP on the basis of one article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom; no evidence of notability --DannyS712 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilles P. Delorme

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

Non-notable person. Insufficient evidence that this person has been the subject of significant coverage in independent media. The French Wikipedia page from which this page was translated does not offer any better evidence of coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reference provided does nothing more than verify that someone with this name exists. In searching for better coverage, I have found nothing to indicate that he meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC notability guidelines, though perhaps someone with a better grasp of the French language may find something? Jmertel23 (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference given establishes nothing. Can't find a solid RS of notbility in english. Britishfinance (talk) 16:14, 12 February 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Ashley

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sourced only by qobuz.com (a sales site rather than an independent source), ascap.com (a trade listing), and youtube (WP:UGC) Cabayi (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Might just be too soon for him, and he may attain enough notability in the future for a Wikipedia article. But as it stands, the most notable thing about his career to date is guesting on a single that reached number 87 on the UK Singles Chart, and there's a dearth of reliable sources talking about him. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. and WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 11:54, 13 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul-Émile Rochon

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

Biography which isn't citing any reliable sources for the purposes of getting the subject over WP:GNG. As always, every president of every organization is not automatically handed a free pass into Wikipedia just because he exist(s/ed) — it can get him in the door if he can be shown to clear GNG on the sourcing, but the only sources cited here at all are unpublished private personal correspondence and a photograph, not reliable source coverage about him. Leading an organization is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have decent sourcing, however. Bearcat (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to ACFEO. Nothing close to an RS on notability. Article been around for a decade and referencing is based on one low-grade site. Britishfinance (talk) 16:17, 12 February 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) 01:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden Octopus Skull Experimental Musick PFestival

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

Apparently short lived and no reliable independent sources to support notability Mccapra (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails NEVENT. The "red-links" all over the article underline the lack of notability. Britishfinance (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Worthy as musical events go, possibly. Unworthy of Wikipedia space, certainly. -The Gnome (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find no sources that this "festival" (actually more like a pub crawl with bands) was ever noticed by the outside world. It was sponsored by local enterprises with local bands playing at local pubs. Local is okay, but notability is more important here and there is no evidence of that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 13 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosy Maze

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

Lack of notability. The closest to WP:SIGCOV a search for sources reveals is^[45], and thus even WP:AGW with the print article this does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artist has an eight record discography that are all linked chronologically and Rosy Maze is right in the middle. I don't think it practical to delete this page.Paradise coyote (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the earlier albums in that list do not have pages either, so it should not be an issue. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Albums are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because the artist who recorded them has a Wikipedia article, or because of what order they happen to fall in within the artist's overall discography — getting reviewed in NME is certainly a start down the path toward notability, but one reliable source is not enough to get it to the finish line all by itself. An album's notability is demonstrated by contextualizing its importance, in terms of creative achievement or commercial success or award-winningness, not just by minimally verifying that it exists — but nothing stated here is evidence of importance at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM. Wikipedia is not a depository of randomly collected information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:49, 13 February 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. Clear consensus. Sources have not been refuted. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Growth recession

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

I can’t find more than a handful of refs for use of this neologism and most seem to derived from this article. I don’t think this term is notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 07:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see multiple uses, some of which pre-date this article. See: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55].Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a fan of the way this article is written, but the term is used in capital markets. Even Investopedia has an article on the term [56]. Britishfinance (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources indicated by Icewhiz - notability clearly demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (choreographer)

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

No evidence of notability. Most refs are YouTube. The Times is a gossip column feature about their new baby. Nothing that adds up to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:CREATIVE. Photoportraits and YouTube videos are not evidence of notability in Wikipedia.-The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 13 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Avara

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

Mayor of a city of less than 25,000 people, a position that likely fails WP:NPOL. Also lacks enough sustained significant coverage to merit WP:GNG, most coverage is related to his being mayor of the town during Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath so the page may have been created due to WP:1E GPL93 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pascagoula MS is nowhere near large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the article is not sourced or substanced anywhere near well enough to make him special either. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost nothing comes up on searches, except for one comment to CNN during the hurricane [57]. The article has a reference to "Transcripts from Larry King Live" but this reference is a bust and links to "CNNStudentNews" with no mention of subject. So the case for notability is around being the mayor of a town of less than 25,000 people. Britishfinance (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marlie Collins

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

Not enough evidence of notability under the rules for actors or singers. Much of her acting work is small background roles and her music album received no media notice. In both endeavors, the only sources found are routine listings in agency sites and retail/streaming services, with very little significant and reliable media coverage. Also note that the article makes no statement of notability, so it may also be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of her acting (including, I'd say, her voiceover work) satisfied WP:NACTOR, as it's almost entirely episodic. She's even further away from satisfying WP:MUSICBIO, since almost nothing came up in a BEFORE sweep on that, certainly not reliable/independent. No obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant sources to pass WP:NACTOR of WP:GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:MUSICBIO. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination on account of subject failing WP:ACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Seoul Broadcasting System

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

Rather random listing of programs. Unsourced and often untranslated. WP:NOTTVGUIDE The Banner talk 12:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Seoul Broadcasting System television programmes; indexing notable TV series by their original broadcast network is completely standard for both lists and categories. If the inclusion criteria needs to be tightened to exclude nonoriginal programming, that's a fixable issue, as are any translation issues or sourcing (if the series is notable, then its originating network is obviously going to be verifiable). Please do not try to use AFD for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is indeed a standard, bounded list of notable topics. Issues with its completeness, and needing additional sourcing, are solvable problems and not a deletion reason. matt91486 (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per suggestions elaborated above by postdlf and matt91486. Subject meets requirements for stand-alone lists in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 13 February 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 Kish Mauve. The basic information of note can be preserved there. bd2412 T 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kish Mauve (EP)

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

Not notable EP album (no studio album) with 3 songs by band on borderline notability. Article is stub, lack reliable sources for album (one archived source of "sundaybest.net/site/releases" is not enough). Create by User:Cazxiro, no active user. Album totally fails of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NMUSIC. Part of data I integrated with main article of band. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 13:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contested prod as I feel the nom does not make an adequate case (also this appears to be related to a content dispute at 2 Hearts (2007 song)); notability of the band is not the question here, though I feel there are enough sources available to show that they are; "no studio album" (?) doesn't mean anything, and the fact that the article is a stub and was created by a now inactive user are not grounds for deletion. PC78 (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, there is no relationship with our dispute in another discussion. Please focus on facts and not personal trips. This is not notable EP album (no studio album) with 3 songs by band on borderline notability, album totally fails of Wikipedia:Notability and WP:NMUSIC. And now, this article is rubbish - stub, lack of reliable sources etc. It does not matter that you can fix it - in this form is to delete and.... it does not make sense to repair it because does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have "focused on facts", there is nothing personal here. You have recently edited several articles related to Kish Mauve including the aforementioned song (which features on this EP) so I don't see how you can say it is not related. I am not familiar with this band or their music so I offer no further comment with regard to notability, but we do not delete articles simply because they are short and lack sources - if we did we would have to delete half of Wikipedia. That is not what notability means. PC78 (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just about the issue of hopeless article and lack reliable sources, the most important argument is not notable album and does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. You came here for me. You instead of understanding the arguments in intro, you prefer trolling. Please stop trolling and spamming here. Wikipedia:Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia, if you can not accept it - go away from Wikipedia. Your trolling and spamming will not be accepted here. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Trolling and spamming"? I have done no such thing - please be civil and assume good faith. The problem is not that I don't understand your argument for deletion, it's that you don't really make one. Simply saying it isn't notable is not enough. PC78 (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First: you are watching my editions - I have evidence, you came here for me, you are not here accidentally, these are fact and you know it. Second: article does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia, you must accept rules and standards of the Wikipedia or go away from Wikipedia. Your posts mean only this: "I have somewhere the Wikipedia:Notability and I always oppose for you". Wikipedia is wrong place for you, sorry. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the argument above, PC78 made valid calls for proper deletion arguments, which the nominator countered with accusations rather than reasoned responses. The following are NOT reasons to delete: being a stub, having been created by a non-active user, having too few references (see WP:NEXIST), being an EP (which by the way IS a studio album, just a short one). The nominator seems unfamiliar with the finer points of WP:NMUSIC, which do not support deleting the article for any of the reasons given. The article surely needs some cleanup and expansion, but this deletion nomination should be withdrawn as unsupportable and possibly uncivil. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: I would like to remind you that: "being a stub, having been created by a non-active user, having too few references, being an EP" are just additives in my description. The main argument is notability and I wrote about it two times (see above)! The article can be improved (add reliable sources, add more text and other) but article does not meet the requirements of the Wikipedia. Not every album is encyclopedic, before you start writing tips, I advise you to read the guidelines because you're making a fuss. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have "written about" notability "two times", it is only via the repeated statement Notability is wide consensus of Wikipedia. As far as I can determine, you have said the album is not notable because notability is something Wikipedia cares about. That is not an explanation of why it's not notable. See WP:JNN. Also note that I have not yet voted, but I do see the need for better arguments before I vote. That's not "making a fuss" unless I am the latest member of the conspiracy that you see all around you. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: - see below. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a fair bit of searching and was able to find a couple sources not currently included in the article. a brief review of the EP from dmcworld.net and an article in The Times. The latter is sadly behind a paywall, but based on the visible content and the excerpt shown in Google search results, it seems likely to be relevant (note that the article's date is also a week or so after the EP's release date). Not sure if these would be considered sufficiently significant or reliable to sustain notability (maybe it depends on what's in that Times article). Dindon~enwiki (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS say: "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings show 7 points - requirements of the Wikipedia for music articles, in brief: "Has been the subject (red. not just a mention somewhere) of multiple (red. many sources), non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published (red. no page of band, records, label, producer etc), and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it." Other stipulations: appeared on music chart, certified gold or higher, nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award, recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, The recording has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

So, this album does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia. In addition, a simple sentence of Wikipedia:Notability works here: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Separate article of this album does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia, the question is only one: to delete or to merge with main article (and create redirect)? Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 01:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See this edit: [58] in which Subtropical-man accused me of trolling and then deleted it. He has also accused PC78 of trolling, which is still visible above. Neither of us actually voted to keep the article yet, and mere comments have been subjected to baseless accusations of foul play. The nominator is engaged in uncivil behavior and is also bludgeoning the process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can other editors please give an opinion on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kish Mauve. Maybe it's notable, but the more important point is that it is unlikely to ever be sourced well enough to expand beyond permastub status. So, per WP:NOPAGE, redirect to the band's article, preserving the history so that anyone can merge anything useful to the band page without further AfD involvement. Bakazaka (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM and there is little to discuss beyond that, aside from arguments that are variants of WP:ILIKEIT. There are simply no sources verifying notability. Nothing can be merged, as has been with obvious kindness suggested, either, because unsourced material is not moved elsewhere but deleted outright. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ReDirect. No single material RS on this album; any RS I could find was about the band and their songs and not this album per se [59]. Spreading the actions of a borderline WP:GNG band over several WP articles (e.g. there is a Template Box at the bottom of a series of Kish Mauve articles) is the wrong approach. Have one central article on the band and anything that is struggling with GNG (e.g. songs or albums) should be added/merged to that article to consolidate references. In a decade's time, these articles are going to get deleted as their thin/weak sources drop away and interest wanes, so consolidation will help preservation of the band. Britishfinance (talk) 13:31, 14 February 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. Lourdes 13:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Tajik

(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. Saqib (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - politician who has not held any public office. All the coverage are passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in english that makes him notable. Poorly written and promotional article. Britishfinance (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination on account of subject failing WP:NPOLITICIAN and before the polls close too. The gaping lack of encyclopaedic value is underlined by items in the text such as 'He met so and so when at a party conference'. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this brochure attempting to pass as a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:18, 13 February 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. Since no admin seems to want to step up to the plate and close this ..... no definitive argument that outweighs all the others has been put forward, despite relisting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Who's Who

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

Unsourced article about vanity publication generally considered unreliable as a source since the content is user provided, and the business model involves sales of the books to its subjects. Little media coverage to establish notability, beyond the idea of Who's Who in general, for which an article already exists. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This title was notable and reliable when it was published by University of Toronto Press, and arguably still is, since Grey House Publishing Canada is a reputable publisher of reference books. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We've all heard of Who's Who, but I'm more concerned that this one doesn't have the required coverage to pass WP:GNG. A compromise might be to simply list it on the Who's Who page and redirect, but even that requires a single reliable source. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Eastmain: AfDs are not decided votes or statements, but on providing significant independent verifable reliable sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, the subject's publisher might be the most "reputable publisher of reference books" on the planet but that would be entirely irrelevant as to the subject's Wikinotability. Notability in our everyday lives is not the same as notability in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TEXTBOOKS - it's obviously not a textbook but serve a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public seems to apply. There's a lot of mentions of the book (like [60]) that wouldn't meet NBOOK#1, but I think are sufficient here. We have an article on Yellow Pages Group, and this seems similar. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a single profile in a reliable source at this point. The link you posted with the passing mention suggests the book's information is unreliable, weakening its notability IMHO. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Power~enwiki: But you haven't given a single solid quality independent reliable source. I don't find the "lots of mentions" that you say except in a few (and it is still a few) lower grade web sites. I can't find a single strong high quality RS on this subject. And a notable Who's Who of Canada should be appearing in every major Canadian newspaper etc. But I can find none except for the single link you offer, which I don't think is a major RS. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was considering nominating this myself, but these two sources [61] [62] gave me pause. Honestly undecided at this point. – Teratix ₵ 06:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the Who's Who info in the first link, but the second is OK. Interestingly again an article about how unreliable it is as a publisher of facts. We'd never let a company article on the site with only 1 or 2 pieces from decades ago. I also worry that if the article stays, it will seem that Wikipedia is somehow validating the book, giving it the appearance of notability, and people might start using it as a source for the unverified information it contains. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the first source, the info starts in the fourth paragraph. – Teratix ₵ 01:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show the article unless I register for an account. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's a little green arrow which I can click on to see the full article without registering. The relevant parts of the article are The Ottawa press gallery of the London Times ... published a neat red volume called The Canadian Who's Who in May 1910. ... The sketches were quite brief, but Peterborough, with at least 40 entries, seemed well-represented. Obviously there's more than that, but I don't want to quote too much per WP:COPYQUOTE. The rest is an examination of the entries related to Peterborough and a short conclusion where the author compares reading the book to using the internet.

I absolutely agree that the book is unreliable and Wikipedia shouldn't be validating it – the solution to that is to rewrite the article using the new sources which show its unreliability. (Incidentally, the bulk of the current text has been contributed by a WP:SPA operating on the publisher's request. [63] It's been edited, but some of it is still there).

On the other hand, even with the new articles sourcing is still quite slim. – Teratix ₵ 01:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a Who's Who of notable Canadians is surely notable, and probably has fewer Canadian names in it than does Wikipedia. However, the article needs more sources and references (as it stands, it only has one reference, and this is to the book's own website). Vorbee (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Vorbee AfDs are not decided votes or statements, but on providing significant independent verifable reliable sources. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vorbee, you're suggesting to Keep the article but your reasons for that justify Deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm hoping a closer will recognize that there are no policy-based arguments or sufficient sourcing to suggest a keep. This simply doesn't meet the same standard we'd hold any BLP or company article to; rather, notability is being confused with familiarity of the Who's Who brand name, which is in the public domain. From what we've seen so far, the book is filled with unverified, self-written articles from people who buy the book to show that they are in it. I don't think there's evidence that this particular version warrants a content fork/carve out from the main Who's Who article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am rather confused about this proposal. There are several other articles about Who's Who in a particular country, such as UK, Australia and France. So, in what way is this article different from the others, or should we be looking at a group proposal for all "Who's Who in X"? at this point, I think this article could be improved, but I am inclined to say "Keep" unless we delete all the others and I see no reason to delete the ones I have looked at. --Bduke (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian Who's Who, although making use of the same Who's Who concept as other publications such as Who's Who (UK), is not otherwise related to them. So there is no obligation to keep or delete all for the sake of consistency – it comes down to whether the sourcing meets WP:GNG or perhaps WP:NBOOK. – Teratix ₵ 12:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke: I'm just focused on this one for now, per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is not inherited, but I worry that people are confusing having heard of the Who's Who series with notability of every book with that name. With a single source mentioning the book, it could go on the list of Who's Who books on that page, but doesn't warrant its own article. That's the crux of the issue. From what I've seen participating in AfDs, there are few other books or companies or people whose articles would survive AfD with such insufficient sourcing. BTW - this is the notability criteria for books. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. #1 is the only one that could possibly apply here, and I don't see a single article where the book is the subject - only where it is briefly mentioned in conjunction with another subject. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of most of what you say, but several matters are not clear. Are all the others related to each other? If so, the same sources can be used and the Canadian one might be an outlier, but it is still doing the same job. I would not know where to look for sources, but it seems possible that we are missing sources for this Who's Who. --Bduke (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All very good questions, and the difficulty we have finding the answers points to less notability rather than more. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bduke: As I mentioned above, the Canadian Who's Who is not related to the others apart from the essential Who's Who concept. Who's Who is a genre, akin to, say, science fiction. Even though science fiction itself is notable, and many science fiction books are notable, that doesn't mean any given science fiction book is notable. – Teratix ₵ 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bduke: The links to other Who's Who distracted me initially; but when I stuck to finding several significant independent RS on this particular subject per the rules, I came up short (per my nomination to Delete below). It is not by accident this article has no independent material RS. Britishfinance (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge as there does seem to be a lack of sourcing. However, editors above have aptly pointed out that other notability factors may apply because of the type of topic, and so it seems the matter isn't as simple as the general notability guideline. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : If there are no sources, we delete. There are no two ways about it. As to the existence of the Who's Who franchise, it does not by itself justify an automatic inclusion in Wikipedia of any related article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per The Gnome. There are policies around notability on WP and this publication does not meet them; not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comment by The Gnome. This is no textbook, the article is unsourced. Ifnord (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Delete. I came to this article expecting a Keep but there are almost no significant RS on this publication (or site) to support WP:GNG. This article has existed for over a decade, and not a single material independent RS has been added. References quoted above like this MacLean's, and this Perterborough Examiner are not enough as they are not about Who's Who, but just refer to it (we are not questioning existance, but notability). This Canadian journalist's blog is the only actual article on Canadian Who's Who but it is not acceptable for WP as an RS; it does explain why the publication was doomed, as you pay your subscription and write your own bio (the reason why it ended up in the MacLean's article above). Media-type GNG cases should be straightforward to prove, as by definition being in the media sector, they should throw up lots of RS. Hardly a single major Canadian newspaper or Canadian television network seems to be interested in the Canadian Who's Who? This has almost nothing in terms of a GNG RS, and certainly when the requirement for "several" significant indepenent RS is added, it is a clear fail. Britishfinance (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing of substance is out there to support its notability. All we have supporting inclusion are variations of WP:ILIKEIT. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK ("The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works...")[64][65] Lourdes 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first reference is to the book itself (it used to be published by TUP), the second reference is a brief mention in the 1998 book of Canadian Trivia. The Canadian Who's Who I'm afraid has not been the "subject" of two independent published works. It has not been the "subject" of any independent published works (that I could find). Notability, especially in the media space, should be straightforward. I don't think we should be relying on such arguments. Britishfinance (talk) 19:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the first reference printed by University of British Columbia Press with extensive coverage of the book is the book "Canadian Who's Who" itself? Are you saying that the 400 words published about Canadian Who's Who in the national trivia book by Dundurn Press is "a brief mention"?!! What are you saying? And here's a third book review by Sources.com; it's a full page, before you say "a brief mention" again.[66] This is apart from the fact that The Chicago Manual of Style considers The Canadian Who's Who amongst their recommended list of biography sources ("...a starting point for writers, editors, and others involved in publishing ... they reflect the specific demands of different disciplines and the evolving traditions of writing, editing, and publishing."[67] To belabour the point, there are many citations to the book on scholar.google.com.[68] Lourdes 01:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources.com is clearly unreliable. See [69], organisations pay for their profile. – Teratix ₵ 01:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That page is about Sources members, who can get profile news releases released like here, which is clearly demarcated. Lourdes 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the listed sources above is the type of in-depth coverage of the book that we'd expect in order to show notability. When was it first published? Who owns it and started it? What's the history? None of that coverage exists despite numerous attempts by the many experienced editors here to find it. Everything points to a merge and redirect to the Who's Who article as an example of the genre that isn't notable on its own. A single line there should suffice. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK requires two book reviews, not a historical analysis. The review needs to be only an editorial review of contents, not of who owned it, what's the history etcetera. You're confusing GNG with NBOOK. For your benefit, NBOOK goes like this: "This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews." Can you believe it, "bestseller lists"?! (The book is listed as amongst being most successful of all times in its category.)[70] I didn't make the guideline, but it works. Here's another book review from The Globe and Mail.[71] Lourdes 01:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a reference work that was historically widely available in Canadian libraries, and is now available to libraries as an online subscription (making it hard to track current holdings). A cumulative index published in 1986 is still held by 131 libraries, not all in Canada and mostly major academic libraries, enough to make a reference book notable. For many years the work was published by the University of Toronto Press. References include an article written by a writer for a major Canadian newspaper (not a blog but an online copy of a 1998 newspaper column) as well as listings in books of Canadian reference sources for libraries. It has enough published sources combined with library holdings as a reference work to warrent an article, much as does the Marquis Who's Who article. Both publications use the same business model, which gives rise to the critical newspaper articles about them. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:17, 15 February 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. After extensive discussion, there is still no agreement whether to keep or delete the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sakharova

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography created by the subject of the article; few references, dubiously notable. eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found https://music.umsl.edu/Faculty/juliasakharova.html that shows she is an assistant professor of music, violin at the University of Missouri, Saint Louis. https://www.allmusic.com/album/rachmaninoff-the-%C3l%C3%A9giaque-piano-trios-mw0001417099 shows one notable work. She does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a delete. The sources are passing mentions of the subject. Most are not significant coverage of the subject. Where there is significant coverage of the subject, it is not independent of the subject. This means that GNG is not met. MUSICBIO is still not met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Walter Görlitz: If MUSICBIO is still not met in your view, please explain how it doesn’t meet #5 and #6. Thanks, Zingarese talk · contribs 16:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - 5. "Has released two or more albums" implies that the subject has released the album. She was a player as a member of an ensemble on an album. 6. "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians" The subject is not an ensemble and "or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" none of the ensembles she has been in have stand-alone articles. There is not enough information in the secondary sources to create a bio article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - With that said, I'll ask two editors who regularly find sources and discuss AfDs about music-related subjects to weigh-in (whether on my interpretation of MUSICBIO or on the notability of the subject is up to them): @Michig: and @Sergecross73:. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ms. Sakharova is currently the 2nd violinist of the acclaimed Arianna String Quartet and in this role recorded the opus 18 and middle period string quartets of Beethoven on the Centaur Records label. Jerry Dubins of Fanfare magazine hailed the recording of the middle quartets as "the greatest performances" of the quartets "in recorded history". This season, the quartet will record the late quartets to finish their complete Beethoven cycle. Also, Sakharova also served as the assistant concertmaster of the Alabama Symphony Orchestra for some time, as well as a member of Albany Symphony Orchestra. I think she passes WP:MUSICBIO #5 and #6 as such. I am also somewhat taken by surprise the the Arianna Quartet does not even have an article - they have been reviewed by NY Times, Chicago Tribune and more, and released numerous albums on major labels... But not every single subject that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines has its own article, and I think this will continue to be the case. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I just created an article for the Arianna String Quartet. But the comment above that “none” of the ensembles she was previously in have stand-alone articles was not even true when it was made. Zingarese talk · contribs 19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It wasn't? Which of her ensembles have articles? Which do? Clearly I'm missing it so rather than offering vague assurance that they have articles, you can show them. At least we have a redirect target now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Albany Symphony Orchestra, where she was a member for some time, and Alabama Symphony Orchestra, where she served as assistant concertmaster.Zingarese talk · contribs 00:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Albany is not listed on her article. So we don't have "ensembles" we have a singular ensemble. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some references to the article (more could no doubt be found), and started a Discography section, to which the Arianna String Quartet recordings could be added. I think she meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, at least, and WP:GNG. (It's clear from the edit history that most of what was written by the subject of the article was deleted, and it has been rewritten by other editors since then, with information from cited sources.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also pinging Walter Görlitz since some sources have been found since the vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree per above, and IMO:meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, most sources are reliable....passes GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone point out to me the third party sources that provide significant coverage on the subject? Not the groups she’s in, but the person herself. There’s a pretty broad consensus that if a musician is only discussed on the context of her respective groups or bands, then that’s how they should be represented on Wikipedia - in the article of the groups, not in her own article. Unless someone can point these out, these keep votes look more like WP:ITSNOTABLE violations and I’d be in favor of deletion or redirecting the article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updating stance to Delete upon the lack of evidence forindependent notability. Still fine with a redirect if there’s an agreed upon target. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There may be more coverage in non-English sources given her origin, but it seems she has been based in the West for most of her career, so maybe not. I didn't find much that isn't already cited in the article. An article in Double Bassist (Google News, article not viewable online) appears to show that she won a prize at the 2003 Jeunesses Musicales Montreal International Competition (presumably a junior competition), and one from The Instrumentalist states that she won first prize at the 47th Olga Koussevitzky Competition for Strings and was a finalist in another competition. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, on account of subject failing WP:NMUSICIAN. Not enough sources verifying subject's independent notabiity have been identified, yet many editors are apparently reluctant to suggest deletion on account of sources supposedly existing in another language. It's revealing that in the effort to Keep the article (whose creator is the subject herself), editors have been creating peripheral articles, e.g. about ensembles she has played in. Anyone still not convinced can go through the list of musicians' notability criteria and check them out. Also do check out the subject's article in the Wikipedia of her native language. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I only created Arianna String Quartet because it is clearly independently notable - one of the finest American string quartets - and a Wikipedia entry does not exist for it! It doesn’t have anything to do with me engaging “in the effort to keep the article”. The articles for Albany Symphony Orchestra and Alabama Symphony Orchestra have already existed for 50 years. However, I continue to stand by my claim that she meets WP:MUSICBIO #6. #5 has been challenged because her recordings have all been chamber music recording; I can concede it might not meet that criterion as such. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any proof it is "one of the finest American string quartets"? I have never heard of them. I have heard of the Kronos Quartet and several others in Category:American string quartets (Del Sol Quartet, Esterhazy Quartet, Juilliard String Quartet, LaSalle Quartet and New World String Quartet) so by what qualification are they "one of the finest"? Also, Wikipedia has not existed for 50 years, so how have their articles existed for 50 years? My impression is that you're using exaggeration, or possibly just hyperbole, to make your case. Emperical statements are easier to verify. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Walter Görlitz: The Arianna String Quartet was the winner of the Fischoff International Chamber Music Competition in the United States in 1994, one of the largest competitions for chamber ensemble in the world and certainly the largest in America. Since then, critics have raved about Arianna; the Chicago Tribune wrote that they "make music with the tonal warmth, fastidious balance, and heightened communication skills of groups many years its senior", and of their recording of Beethoven's middle quartets, Fanfare magazine said: "I am prepared to state and defend my belief that these may just be the greatest performances of Beethoven’s middle quartets in recorded history." Of course, the "50 years" statement was hyperbole; The Gnome accused me of "creating peripheral articles" when the article about Arianna was the only one I created, which I did only because they are independently significant per the notability guidelines. (There are many other chamber ensembles out there that are also independently notable per MUSICBIO and GNG but don't have articles.) The Albany and Alabama articles have existed for many years. Zingarese talk · contribs 00:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - A major competition? How many other quartets have won that award (and who are they)? How much publicity did winning that award garner for them? Clearly they have some local coverage. but has BBC Music Magazine (or a similar publication) done a feature article on them? Has NPR made them a feature performer for any period of time? The underlying problem is that classical music gets very little recognition precisely because there is little interest in the field and few notable performers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even beyond that, do we have any evidence of Julia’s independent notability? To illustrate what I mean, let’s look at other media. We can go on and on about the awards Black Panther (film) or Call of Duty may win, that doesn’t make every single of their hundreds of staff members are notable and deserving of their own separate article. Same applies here. If every notable thing she does is in the context of a group she’s in, then you haven’t established the need for a separate article. Sergecross73 msg me 02:31, 14 February 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, defaulting to the best redirect target, BeOS#Products using BeOS. bd2412 T 15:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tunetracker Radio Automation

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Most, if not all of the potential sources (Google) are clearly not independent. For example 1 is written like an advertisement; fast, lightweight, and stable, like the commercial BeOS operating system it was fashioned after is what this page describes the radio software as. There is also not a wide pool of any kind of source available; even on the first page of the google search, two copies of the wikipedia page on wikivisually and revolvy are shown as the 6th and 4th result respectively. Even if some suitable sources were found from Google, there won't be enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any mentions of this thing that are 1. reliable sources or 2. not written like advertisements. I think this is the closest thing, but that's not good. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other sources I found so far: Radio World 2002 review [72]; Computer Music magazine (January 2005) article about internet radio stations: pp. 68-71 are mostly devoted to TuneTracker, but there are extensive quotes of author of said application. There may be more of this kind of coverage in computer music related published magazines frome the early 2000s. I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, okay. A proposal: merge into BeOS#Products_using_BeOS? Given your sources, I'm leaning away from removing this material from the wiki, but I still don't know that it merits its own article. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target article already mentions this application, so this may be a viable target. I will look for other sources, but I don´t think I will find more (BeNews could provide some short news - nothing to improve notability; there may be a review in some BeOS centered magazine, but it will be next to impossible to find relevant scans on the net). Pavlor (talk) 12:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the archived website of the company behind this application is short notice about column on byte.com. Although that page is no longer accessible, author of BeOS related column (Scot Hacker) has his articles on his own webpage: [73] and archived version is also on archive.org [74]. Looks like solid source for notability. Pavlor (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat weak keep as there are good RS about this application, but not in the quantity I would like. Pavlor (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference that I can find to his product is from a site called Radio World (an industry trade journal notable enough to have its own WP article). However in Radio World's 2018 review of radio systems [75] it doesn't list Tunetracker as a major product (and it lists several). In any of the reviews on Radio World about Tunetracker, I don't see anything saying that it is an important or an industry leading product. Outside of Radio World, the coverage drops off to very obscure sources. Article has been effectively unreferenced for several years now – author left WP after creating the article – and the only two links are SPAM to its own website. This is PROMO of a non-notable product, making unsubstantiated claims, that fails any basic WP:GNG test. Britishfinance (talk) 10:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the sources I mentioned above (Computer Music magazine, byte.com)? Pavlor (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I could not find any link to them? Britishfinance (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Computer Music magazine (January 2005, pp 68-71) [76], byte.com [77]. Pavlor (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks Pavlor. The Byte reference is from 2001 and there is no indication that Tunertracker was a leading product in the sector at that time? The article on page 68–71 of the 2005 Computer Music Magazine is about the online radio space in general, and lists a range of software programs, of which Tunetracker is one? While nobody denies the Tunetracker products existed, the issue is whether they are notable. I think that Tunetracker is not notable now, but I am not sure Tunetracker was even particularly notable in 2001-05, outside of being one of number of software products in this area? thanks again. Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, or, to be gracious, Detonate. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 13 February 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. Lourdes 13:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Colts Neck mansion killings

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

Event without lasting notability, all coverage is from within two weeks of the event in November 2018. Per the relevant notability guideline WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." DePROD by Necrothesp who suggested that a multiple homicide should be taken to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for now - local and state level coverage continuing. Was a national level story (e.g. CNN had an item a month ago). Nj.com ranks this as the biggest NJ crime story of 2018 - [78]. If coverage goes dormant, it might not be notable, but given continuing coverage this 2.5 month old event is still RAPIDish.Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Some coverage from this month [79]. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage. Notable.BabbaQ (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and revisit after the trial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. I don't understand !votes of "keep for now". What does that mean? If it turns out that this isn't notable after all, we should delete it? That's the world on its head. At this point, this is just another murder case. Sure, it was gruesome (two children among the victims) and all that, but that doesn't translate into notability. For events like this, it has to be shown that there is lasting coverage (like the Manson murders), which for an event that happened last November is for the moment impossible to say, or that it influences policy/laws, which for the same reason is impossible to say at this point (but unlikely). Sure, there will be some coverage again when this goes to trial, but that's also routine. Such coverage can be found for any murder, anywhere in the world (although this kind of rash creation of articles seems to be limited to US crimes...), we cannot cover every single murder ever committed and we should not. --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear-cut case of WP:NOTNEWS, sourced only to news reports rather than secondary sources. I share Randykitty's bemusement about the "keep" votes above. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Single murders may well not be notable. Multiple murders almost invariably are. Frankly, I find it a rather worrying comment on American society that the murder of four people is treated in such a blasé fashion. I'm not sure this would be the case in any other Western country. I don't think that an article on such a multiple murder in my country would ever be deleted or that the crime would be considered not to be of lasting notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a double murder in your (and my) country was deleted with unanimous support just this month. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murders generate a flurry of coverage just after they happen (especially if there's not much esle happening right at that moment) and then again a bit when it goes to trial. Then perhaps something in a local newspaper on an anniversary or so. That's not notability. Really notable murders, like Ted Bundy's or Charles Manson's are very rare. It is easy in the excitement of the moment to get carried away and find something extremely important, but some time later something else comes up and the whole thing gets forgotten. Just this morning I read a headline about a mother and her 4 children being murdered. It wa not in the US, but I doubt that we have an article on it, nor should we: gruesome as this crime is, reality is that it'll be forgotten next week. This is why WP should not have articles on current events like this, because it is way too soon to judge whether there's any lasting impact. --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two people, not four! An analogy to this one would be the White House Farm murders. I don't think anyone would consider deleting that article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Several books have been published about the White House Farm murders. If that happens for the Colts Neck mansion killings then of course we can have an article, but it hasn't happened yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING and the WP10YT. See also WP:RECENTISM of which this appears to be a textbook example. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the case was not treated by media like a ROUTINE murder. The Washington Post doesn't cover routine murders in the Garden State A N.J. family is dead, a mansion is burned — and a sibling is charged with murder. People Magazine : A Brother's Betrayal? How a Torched N.J. Mansion Led Police to a Slain Family and a Shocking Arrest, mansions, millions, greed, for whatever reason the story has legs Star Ledger: Colts Neck killings: Caneiro brothers' once-thriving tech business showed signs of slowing down. Point is that this looks notable because of the WP:SIGCOV it has gotten.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 6 February 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. Lourdes 11:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K Varghese

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

No evidence that he meets WP:BIO. Independent sources are all passing mentions, not sources about him but about events where he was. Fram (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, most likely a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The text in the article would have him fail WP:BIO (e.g. being the treasurer of a church group); nothing I can see that would support WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Yet another vanity affair without any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Szanto

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

fails WP:NFOOTY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Can't find anything showing he was signed to Portland or Accrington, let alone played a game for them. Giant Snowman 10:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about semi-pro (at best) footballer which could be a hoax or at least lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources, and doesn't pass NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find evidence that he played for Kitsap Pumas and Burscough, but absolutely nothing to suggest that he played for Portland or Accrington. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:17, 6 February 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 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swing Unlimited

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable Vmavanti (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Just a self-funded jazz band playing old hits at local venues on the south coast of England. What they do is admirable, but nowhere near notable enough for an encyclopedia. Even the one reference in the article has been badly archived and makes no mention of the band, so there are no independent sources whatsoever. Richard3120 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I gave a delete view in the 2010 AfD which closed without consensus (though with no arguments towards retention). Looking for sources again, I still see nothing better than passing local coverage too insubstantial for the WP:NORG criteria (former or current) for an article in its own right. A brief mention in Bournemouth#Culture might be an option, but the sources feel too light to sustain that alternative. AllyD (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to be of local interest only, perhaps unlike Loose Tubes, which the article compares it to. Vmavanti (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavanti: yes, Loose Tubes did actually garner some significant national media attention at the time, unlike this band. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. There is not a single sold RS to support notability on this band. The single reference in the article is junk (including archive reference) and makes no reference to the band anymore. This is a non-notable local bank. Definately not even close to being notable for Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...it's a bank? But a very entertaining bank.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:04, 13 February 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 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Mishanin

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

Lack of notability. Most sources zare about his company; cruchbase entry is simply a directory-type listing, notanything substantive. TheLongTone (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just redirect to Bright Box, although I haven't followed up to confirm if Bright Box is notable either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenia Shoygu

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

"She is the youngest daughter of the Minister of Defence of Russian Federation Sergei Shoygu" - WP:NOTTEMPORARY. In the Russian Wikipedia article was deleted by notability criteria. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 02:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and very (very) promotional. I have a feeling that without salting, we will be seeing this article again. Britishfinance (talk) 22:41, 9 February 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 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frosted Faces Foundation

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

I can't find any significant coverage - passing mentions in news articles about animals they've rescued, but nothing that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely this is a good cause, but it's not necessarily a good fit for Wikipedia. Per nom, I found a few local interest stories, but the not enough to meet CORPDEPTH. Grayfell (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 6 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Geick

AfDs for this article:

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

Dylan Geick does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for an article and was deleted previously for that reason. I am moving that it be deleted again. Subsequent to the first deletion, Dylan left the Columbia University wrestling team, so if anything notability has decreased. Please note that his book of poems was self-published using Blurb, and there are widespread claims that a significant portion of his social media following was purchased. Omaharodeo (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)and[reply]

Super Keep (Author) He did not leave the Columbia wrestling team he took a gap year.. you can see by the sometimes 500 views a day of his wiki page that he has a strong following as a subject.. where is your evidence that his followers on social media were purchased.. His poetry has been written about by the New York Times.. there has been wider media coverage since the first article of him was deleted after having been nominated for damnation via an isp address then proxied into prosecution... By the way thanks for abreasting me of this nomination it is so very gentlemanly of you not to do so. ... Williamsdoritios (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:POPULARPAGE, pageview stats are not a reason to keep an article (in addition to being easily gamed). There has been no significant coverage of the subject's self-published poetry in the New York Times or anywhere else that I can find. Just context (not centrally relevant), but claims that the subject's social media following has been purchased are so widespread that he has repeatedly mentioned them himself. Omaharodeo (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but must point out that it is impossible for notability to decrease. Reliable sources, which are the basis of notability, do not unwrite themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that there has been an article published about the subject in the Chicago Tribune since the last AfD discussion, so it is possible that notability has increased. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I take your points. To the extent there has been any coverage, it has been mostly about the subject being a gay athlete, so one idea would be merging into List of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sportspeople. The particular article you mention is local coverage (subject is from Chicago) that does not seem to establish notability per WP:NCOLLATH. Omaharodeo (talk) 13:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just ftr, that article was published in the Lake County News-Sun which is a "regional newspaper based in Gurnee, Illinois." It appears on the Tribune domain because of how Tronc organizes regional newspaper content. Omaharodeo (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a New York Times aricle for Heaven's sake [80]Williamsdoritios (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is a column, not an article. One notable difference is that the information conveyed is mostly unverified. Additionally, this particular column (Up Next) is only included in the local edition of the Times because the subjects are not of national importance. The vast majority of Up Next column subjects do not have standalone articles on Wikipedia. Omaharodeo (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its national you were able to read it..Its international.. you break away parts of the story and try to destroy it but all put together he is notable and only getting more notable. Further to say the rest of most of all the rest of the citations are gay athlete things is to denigrate that as well....(this is local this is gay).. The New York Times is probably the most notable newspaper in the United States and they have fact checkers and all national stories are local in originWilliamsdoritios (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:RSP, Wikipedia policy does distinguish between types of Times writing in evaluating reliability. The Up Next column (not article) in the local edition of the Times is more analogous to their wedding announcements -- which also appear on nytimes.com but are purchased and minimally fact-checked -- than to a bonafide news article. Again, the vast majority of Up Next subjects do not have standalone Wikipedia pages. These columns (not articles) are publicist-arranged, not rigorously fact-checked, and appear only in the local edition of the paper. You may be right that the subject is "only getting more notable", but that just means this is WP:TOOSOON. Omaharodeo (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It may have been too soon then but its not too soon nowWilliamsdoritios (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (stike through, see final comment in this thread). Obviously this article needs some work, which I'm starting on. But if you look at the sources, he meets GNG. Articles solely focusing on the subject appear in the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Tribune (again), the Chicago Tribune (a third time), Outsports, the Up Next section of the NYT, Socialite Life, Chicago Pride, and others. --Kbabej (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, he did not appear in the Chicago Tribune; he appeared in various regional papers focused on the suburbs that do not seem to establish notability per WP:NCOLLATH. They are on the Tribune domain because of how Tronc organizes local content. Omaharodeo (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know (re: Chicago Tribune). But, to be fair, is it WP:NCOLLATH? It isn't statistics of plays they're reporting. It's coverage based on him coming out and being an out athlete. --Kbabej (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good point, it's a mix of WP:NCOLLATH and WP:BLP1E. Omaharodeo (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it BLP1E when you add the coming out, poetry, and influencer stuff together? That seems like three separate areas of coverage. --Kbabej (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry has no significant coverage that I have been able to find; did you find any? The book was a self-published thing that anyone can make using a for-pay website. I'm not sure how to quantify the "influencer" stuff, but there is no reliable coverage of it, just spammy blogs and so forth right? I appreciate this good-faith discussion. Omaharodeo (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of good faith discussions, I'm becoming more convinced while talking with you about a neutral vote at this point. As for quantifying the influencer stuff, there's the article at Socialite Life, which has been used a total of 11 times on WP, not counting this article. There's an article on Queerty talking about his fans, and the Lake-County News Sun calls him an "internet celebrity." So there's not a ton there, but still a some coverage. --Kbabej (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your characterization -- some coverage exists, however dicey. I went through the Socialite Life and Queerty links and wow they seem pretty brutal as sources. They are primarily a bunch of links to the subject's Instagram posts with a few sentences indicating he is a gay wrestler. The Lake-County News Sun article you cite seems much closer, but then that's hyper hyper hyper local. Omaharodeo (talk) 02:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the arguments below, the fact that the "Chicago Tribune" articles were in fact regional news (my fault on that one), and the possibility of inflated followers, I am striking my above keep vote. --Kbabej (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Statement on the Deletion of Dylan Geick from Max LaSalle (Instagram: @realmaxlasalle twitter: @realmaxlasalle): Dylan Geick's Wikipedia page should not be deleted. Why? Because he is a official public figure. He has tons of followers on Instagram and lots of subscribers on YouTube. He receives hundreds of view on his Wikipedia page (not anymore sense it's going into deletion). He also was and I believe he is still a wrestler that has a amazing run in the wrestling career and he is also a big public figure in the LGBT community. Why would we want to delete his page. There is just simply no reason and no true un-biased facts into why his Wikipedia page should be deleted. 2600:8800:2F08:7700:A1DF:F6BE:3169:5264 (talk) 06:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)Max LaSalle[reply]

Sorry, who are you and how did you find out about this? -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What official grants the status of an "official public figure"? And the accusation of bias is unfounded. I can only believe that you mean bias against gay people, but, in my experience, gay people are not underrepresented on Wikipedia in the way that other groups who are disadvantaged in the Anglophone West certainly are. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. This article exists because an iNfLuEnceR is trying to get verified on instagram. He’s on his Snapchat begging people to come here and say keep. This person is a fake author, a fake wrestler, a fake student, and buys fake followers. What has he done other than come out as gay... take his shirt off on ig? Is wiki this easy to manipulate? I’m sorry I don’t know the lingo. I tried to do the right format. 2600:1012:B02D:536B:54B1:EBBA:B499:9007 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Andrew Williams[reply]

Question? Also who are you and where did you hear about this? Please elaborate on snapchatWilliamsdoritios (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also WP:PRODded article Early Works: A Collection of Poetry created by User:MarkZusab on 2019-01-29 and PRODded by User:Omaharodeo a couple of hours later. --Closeapple (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree Early Works: A Collection of Poetry should be deleted. It has not received any substantial coverage. The section in the subject's article is enough. --Kbabej (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note: I created Early Works: A Collection of Poetry as a redirect and have merged the current content into Dylan Geick. MarkZusab (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree that the poetry book article should be deleted because the mention on his own wiki page is enough... Williamsdoritios (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)..[reply]

Comment Note: I created Early Works: A Collection of Poetry as a redirect and have merged the current content into Dylan Geick. MarkZusab (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two of us have now spent significant time trying to improve this article, and I am more convinced than ever that it should be deleted (for the second time). It is plainly true that the subject's wrestling achievements and writing achievements are not notable. Beyond that, all we have is gossip about the subject's romantic life and social media follower counts (which are widely alleged to be inflated). The key sources are press releases and opinion columns which were not rigorously fact-checked. Omaharodeo (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You may have tried to improve the article but you have also removed multiple details, demanded that inline citations make the point of every detail of the article on the spot where the details are are. As there are parts of the article where the cittaion is listed further down as you have rearranged the article like a game of three card monte and then removed the notations for being redundant when trying to reprove the factual flow. This is the case with the Geick Keioch relationship you are so relentless I just left it alone... You have manicured every word here I guess you feel if you can deneuter every last detail you can prove it is non-notable you know whatever.. The truth is he has a large social media presence. He is visibly involved in activism at this point and his story has been covered by multiple national outlets which you are intent on proving are not actually that. Williamsdoritios (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the subject doesn't appear to meet the various notability criteria, and I also note an issue where it seems the subject is canvassing off-Wikipedia for support to keep his page. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:NoCOBOL it is your choice and right to vote for deletion, however, the fact that there are two seemingly ridiculously worded vote summaries in the last round which mention instagram does not mean tbe subject is canvassing off wikipedia. The internet is a fluid place there are many people who follow the subject on social media some of those people know how to google and wikipedia is a huge site and many people wind up here. Of the two votes which mention offsite connections one is for keep and one is for delete.Williamsdoritios (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You seem to be well connected with the subject. Could you tell us whether or not they have mentioned this deletion discussion in any way, perhaps in a way that could be construed as canvassing, perhaps not. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Listen you mean well abreasted not well connected and I have not seen or heard of any such thing. Further people are free beings that can mention all they want and the people who are mentioning those sites don't seem to be writing their arguements at a very high level. Personally I am really tired of all this nonsense blasted nonsense the internet is fluid. Williamsdoritios (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, I meant what I said. Also, you can indent your posts with : or * -- NoCOBOL (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “College wrestler is gay” is not enough to meet notability standards no matter how popular he may be on the Internet. This is too soon. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm done here . I leave his page to its fate whatever that maybe. If he is too soon in the vwords of Morrissey How Soon is Now Williamsdoritios (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sufficient coverage has not been shown to satisfy the general notability guideline. There just seem to be a few human interest stories in local newspapers, or the local pages of regional newspapers. What happens on "social media" (a misnomer if ever I saw one) is irrelevant to Wikipedia notability, which depends on coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a page is systematically destructured of course it reads as non-notable.. I will say this though the fact that the subject jumps from one endeavor to the other does reduce the notability thread.Williamsdoritios (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My comment was in no way based on the current state of the article, but on the totality of reliable sources that have been presented or that I can find myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article about a wannabe Instagram influencer, college athlete and self-published author. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spent time tidying up this discussion for indentations and to clarify which are comment points so that it can be read easily (I have not touched any actual text). There is just not enough to confirm GNG. There are bits and pieces, but nothing that you can definitively point to. Perhaps this will change in the future and he will increase notability, but more would be required in terms of significant independent WP:RS discussing him. If a new article re-appears with no improvement in RS, it should be speedily deleted. Britishfinance (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tribune coverage is not actually from Chicago Tribune but local sources that fall under WP:YOUNGATH. NY Times coverage is not the type of significant coverage that meets WP:GNG--it's the "Up Next" section. Canvassing or not, the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. agtx 21:42, 12 February 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://caravanmagazine.in/politics/shivam-shankar-singh-as-told-to-bjp-data

[2] ttp://time.com/5512032/whatsapp-india-election-2019/

[3] ttps://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/WhatsApp-grapples-with-outsized-influence-ahead-of-Asia-polls

[4] ttps://penguin.co.in/book/politics/how-to-win-an-indian-election/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]