Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 June	3 June >

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 keep. With no opposing delete arguments, the keepers have a clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Nechaeva

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

Russian Opera singer. Sources are not substantive.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 22:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Subject of this article is notable. The article needs development not deletion. A simple Google News search finds citation sources including The Washington Post, Washington Classical Review, OperaWire, DC Theater Scene, Broadway World, DC Metro Theater Arts, Deutschlandfunk Kultur, B.Z. Berlin, Pletea magazine, Tagesspiegel, De Morgen, Giornale della Danza, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) Netherzone (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see a deletion rationale. No doubt there are sources in Russian, but now that she has made her debut in the US, there are plenty of English-language sources which can be added to the article (as the previous editor has noted). Eg the Washington Classical Review: "The sensation of WNO’s cast is Anna Nechaeva, who made an outstanding U.S. debut as Tatiana. The Russian soprano had all of the vocal qualities for the role, and she imbued the Act I Letter Aria with innocence, passion, and dreaminess. The power of the performance came just as much from her acting abilities, making the character both vulnerable and exalted. Towering strength came later in Act III, when she finally put Onegin in his place, singing with a more mature vocal presence." [1]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable singer. Geoffroi (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NEXIST as there is plenty of significant coverage in teliable sources such as Washington Classical Review, De Morgen, Broadway World, and others so she passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel C. Mitchell

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

Screenwriter of questionable notability. Has no notable films, the only sources I can find are about how he was going to write a remake of a film that was never released. (It was difficult to find info though given how common his name is) Wgolf (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are way past the point where any article sourced only to IMDb should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 5 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinsey Wolanski

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

Non notable person. Unknown as a model. Once I ran across the field, even in the Champions League final.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kinsey gained notability only because of her pitch invasion during the 2019 UEFA Champions League Final, so that makes the article fails WP:NMODEL and also slightly fails WP:GNG. Ben5218 (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NMODEL. Simply running across a field doesn't establish notability. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E was written for just such an instance, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". And it isn't even a notable event. Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notify the creator... @Ahmedzeid:? starship .paint (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I notified him about the deletion process. Ben5218 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thankful we have policy that prevents this from being an article. Non-notable even if giving full weight to the BLP1E which we obviously shouldn't. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Open and Shut Delete: fails WP:NMODEL. Don't know if her running across the field even amounted to a real life 15 seconds! Nothing notable about this. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefor WP:BLP1E --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of competitions do not even make their winner notable, but 8th runner up in Miss Jetset is so low it probably creates negative notability points, that could justify deleting an article even if the person was almost borderline on other issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it is true that she has gained lots of notability in a short time, it wasn't only because of her running across a field. She starred in a film and placed 8th in a Miss Jetset Contest. She will become more famous over time, just how prankster Vitaly Zdorovetskiy did. I think she passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NMODEL. 71.208.31.56 (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: was known before the match (BLVD, Jetset, Sports Illustrated, FHM, Maxim).--95.24.58.127 (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is something that rarely happens: an anon user has won me over. Why she would get so much press coverage is truly a mystery ... but then I could not understand the press coverage of Kim K. or Paris H. The article is notable! - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E. Lots of uncommon things happen all the time; that doesn't make them notable. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She just barely passes WP:GNG. But, still, she passes. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:24, 9 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Smith

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

I don’t see any significant coverage of her anywhere, mostly other writers’ blogs and publisher info, one convention notice, and two books she teamed up with Andre Norton on. It has been mentioned that some of her books were nominated for various awards, but no wins came about. I’m unfamiliar with her work so I don’t know how significant it is as far as qualifying for WP:AUTHOR goes. Posting to AfD in case anyone familiar with her or the genres can vouch for her and her works. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on NPOINTS/NAUTHOR#3 grounds: I can't see sigcov of her either, but she's at ISFDB (which lists her award noms) and SFE and there's sufficient reviews of her work in aggregate including [2][3][4][5][6], plus Kirkus and PW. Quantity of reviews would make a couple of her books at least weakly pass NBOOK (though my preference in such cases is generally for such works to be redirected as Template:R from book and covered at subsections of the author article). No objection to redirection/merge of articles on her works lacking reasonable sourcing, nor trimming the catalogue or nuking the navbox. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it’s a sizeable article and it seems like she’s quite prolific in her writing and publication. There is a decent fantasy subculture that doesn’t always get coverage in the MSM, but that doesn’t mean this author isn’t popular and well-known to a great number of people. Locochoko (talk) 11:59, 7 June 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel David Mendelssohn

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

Unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs, no cites. No option but delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete It would be impossible to prove anything in this article, as there are no sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article constitutes an automatic pass of our notability standards for either politicians or political scientists — he has held no political office that passes WP:NPOL, and making a person a notable political scientist hinges on showing evidence of his notability as a political scientist and not just saying the words "one of the most notable political scientists". The matter of whether he qualifies for an article or not, accordingly, depends on reliably sourcing him over WP:GNG, not just stating that he exists — but there are no sources here, and there's no article in the German Wikipedia (where I'd expect a genuinely notable German political scientist to be covered) to check for other sourcing either. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry J. Gillis

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

This looks like an autobiography. It's been repeatedly placed in article space and repeatedly moved back to draft (once by me). The article creator seems determined to let it take its chance in mainspace, so it seems to be time to try to determine whether this person is sufficiently notable to have a page here. I don't think so: he gets a few hits on GNews, on sites such as DreadCentral and DarkVeins; and two verifiable hits on GBooks. Nowhere do I see the sort of in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would justify having a page about him, or indeed enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references in the article and the other ones that have been found add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep These were actual mistakes in trying to get the page up, and trying to get it into and out of draft, by no means was there an attempt to break any rules. I actually thought, I was following the proper process, so my apologies for this Justlettersandnumbers. It seems this is your main criteria to get rid of the Article. This Article is backed up by many verifiable sources, such as Yahoo News, Maxim magazine, and other sources that are all verifiable. The article also has connections to verifiable Wiki pages that already exist, as well as the Internet Movie Data Base. Not to mention that the subject matter contains World Renowned people, including Bret Hart, and Corey Feldman, that are involved with the subjects latest movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC) — Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. No such user; talk page for this username redirects to Donairpizza9999. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is notable and credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elohor20 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC) — Elohor20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Note. A previous (grouped) deletion discussion ended in delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THINGS (1989) in 2009. I draftified a version of this despite the AfD because the subject's notability might well have increased in that interval. The creating editor has changed their user name after being asked whether they were connected with the subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note The reason the name change was put in, was because, that I am a big fan of his, and my username appears, as if I am connected with him, but I am not, and I did not want this to be any reason in determining the fate of a page about him. His first movie THINGS is my favorite film of all time, and I follow, and keep up with everything he does, since discovering the film over 22 years ago. His other films, I am not as fond of as THINGS, as nothing can compare to THINGS, and how the movie has changed my life. However, I still love his other films. I have copies of 2 other films he has made, and I am currently waiting for 2 more of his films to be released, so I can get my hands on the films. I am not connected with the subject in anyway, although I have met him on 2 separate occasions, at two theatrical Screenings of THINGS. I have also corresponded with him by e-mail about 7 years ago, and he answered many unanswered questions, I had about THINGS. He was nice to me, and took the time to correspond with me. I started the THINGS page, because the movie is notorious, and has a cult following of fans, (like myself) and is written about extensively in film books, and all across the internet, and a couple of years a few years ago, even got released in Japan. I felt that THINGS, being my favorite movie was deserving of a Wikipedia page. So that is why I started the article. If I was connected with him in anyway, I would have declared that I was connected with him, and I believe that it is not fair, if a fan takes up a similar user name of who he is a fan of, and then the subject gets blamed for being connected with the filmmaker, or even being the filmmaker himself, and this is seen as a strike against the person I am a huge fan of, so that is why I did change the name. It would be no different (as just an example) if my username was robertplantengland, and I was making a page about Led Zepplin, and was asked to declare if I was connected with Robert Plant, of Led Zeppelin, and changed the user name, because I did not want Wiki to think that I was connected with him, and affect a page about him. I use usernames that are similar to many things I am fans of. For instance, the Band WASP, I use Blackielawlesstexas, (Blackie Lawless is the Leader of the band WASP) Blackie sang alot about Texas in his songs. So on some sites I sign up too, I use that name. On other Sites, I use barryjedmonton, as the director lives in Edmonton, and I am a fan of his work. I use Metallicausa, (Metallica, being another of my favorite bands)

I use paulstanleynewyork, I use genesimmonsnewyork, as KISS is another one of my favorite bands. I use a few usernames around the net, for all kinds of things that I am a fan of. So, I find this not to be fair, that anybody here, would think that I am connected, or know Barry J Gillis personally, although I have reached out to him as a fan. I admire his work, and what he does, and this would be quite a shame, if the page was squashed, because a fan of the artist, took up a nickname that was similar to the artists name. Especially when I believe he is deserving of a Wiki page, and the page fits the definition of Wikipedia's Notability Rules. --Donairpizza9999 (talk) 14:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC) (Blocked for sockpuppetry. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]

*keep I know Donairpizza9999 for a couple of years, as I am his room mate. I am not sure if my keep, has any weight or not in this, but I will say, I did say, I would help out, and do some research, on the director, and I will say, I found information, and links that he has been in the National Post in Canada, and CTV, News, CBC News, and other Canadian Newspapers, and TV. I added a few of them to the Article. I am in no way a fan of this filmmaker myself, as I don't like these kinds of movies, however I have to say that this is deserving of being on Wikipedia. I have seen many pages in the past, that don't have anywhere near the amount of backup or sources, that this director has. That's my two cents on this. Thank You. --Jasminhhhh (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC) — Jasminhhhh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked user. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Note I found this post by MichaelQSchmidt, and I believe that it is a very significant post, when concerning this Wiki Page. "I did find that WP:RS instructs reliable sources are from authors "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and "How reliable a source is depends on context". Guideline does not mandate that Wall Street Journal or Forbes review independent horror films, nor does it mandate that Film Threat, Fangoria, or Rue Morgue report on Barrack Obama. Horror genre experts reporting on a horror-genre subject quite specifically follow guideline."--Jasminhhhh (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC) I believe that MichaelQSchmidt's Post, sums up why, Barry J. Gillis, should be included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasminhhhh (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC) Blocked user -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody without a conflict of interest can do better than this. What I'm getting from the sourcing is not strong evidence of notability-supporting coverage about him, but a cluster reference bomb of mostly primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence; what I'm getting from the writing tone is "semi-advertorial attempt at self-promotion" rather than "encyclopedia article"; and what I'm getting from this discussion is that all but one of the keep votes above have come from single-purpose accounts with little to no prior edit history, including the article creator, the article creator's roommate and the article subject himself — but all of the comments, either above or on the article's talk page, which are signed "Barryjedmonton" were posted by Donairpizza, not by a user who is actually registered as "Barryjedmonton", so Donairpizza's claim to be unaffiliated with Barry Gillis is very obviously false.
There are potentially valid notability claims here, but this is mostly not the referencing that turns a notability claim into a notability slam-dunk — and even if he does have a valid notability claim, the article still has to be written neutrally by somebody without a conflict of interest. We are not a place where Barry Gillis is entitled to write about himself for PR purposes, whether directly or by paying somebody to do it for him — we're an encyclopedia, where the content has to be written neutrally and independently by people who don't have a vested interest. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - How many roommates do you have?!? A quick review of the contributions of these editors User:Jasminhhhh / User:Elohor20 / User:barryjedmonton / User:Americanmoviecritic / User:Vortexxxx / User:Donairpizza9999 / ... tells me not to waste my time. Anything authored by this series of WP:SOCKPUPPETs needs WP:TNT. Orville1974 (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I felt negatively toward it in agreement with the non-sockpuppet editors' comments above, but it is hard to see the wood for the trees in an article with so much crap prose and poor sources. So I have cleaned it up substantially. I could go further and remove the remaining presumably non-reliable sources. That would leave the sources of books that are supposed to mention him, and reliable web sites that are all about the single issue at the film festival. I haven't made a decision as to my vote yet. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the remaining non-reliable sources. Notability may rest on to what extent Gillis is mentioned in these books that are used as sources: They Came from Within: A History of Canadian Horror Cinema, The Psychotronic Video Guide To Film, and Cinema Sewer Volume 1: The Adults Only Guide to History's Sickest and Sexiest Movies!. Is it just a passing mention or is it significant? Considering there are so many fans of the man voting here, perhaps they have access to these books and can let us know? -Lopifalko (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Bill Zebub is the King of the B Movies! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete assuming the mention in the 3 book sources is a trivial mention; given that the mention in the 4 reliable sources regarding the film festival advertisement are not sustained coverage of him and are concerned with a single event (and the National Post article is a copy and paste of the CTV News article); and the 3 remaining sources don't add up to enough to satisfy WP:FILMMAKER. However I stripped this article back to its constituent parts and it should be available should anyone else wish to pick it up and add to it if new material comes to light. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz derby

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Per WP:NRIVALRY - no indication of GNG. Simply playing on a reasonably regular basis does not demonstrate a de facto rivalry. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice of recreation if Farsi sources exist - I can find absolutely nothing at all on this derby in English-language sources that's not a Wikipedia mirror and I am terrible searching in Farsi. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable, not a complete article Alex-h (talk) 16:26, 5 June 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Hub accident

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

A case of WP:NOTNEWS. News reports appear to be from the time and not since, indicating a lack of notability. Lopifalko (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The justice system does not always move quickly in Pakistan, but I would expect both criminal and civil trials to take place about this collision. A joint investigation team was established after the collision, but I do not know whether it has published a report yet. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: You are speculating about potential future events that may or may not contribute toward this event becoming Wikipedia-notable. Deleting this article does not prejudice against creating a new article if and when it becomes notable. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Eastmain— Bukhari (Talk!) 15:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the form of articles ([7], [8]) from February about the results of the investigation. The crash itself is notable for receiving international press coverage and attention from a member of Pakistan's National Assembly. --Surachit (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Lopifalko (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fil Bo Riva

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

I cannot find independent reliable sources in order to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. The included Stern source is unsuitable as it is an interview. The other 2 sources are not independent reliable sources. There is a few lines devoted to the album at Clash (magazine) here but that is scraping the barrel. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Lopifalko (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Foreign language Ruhr Nachrichten and Frankenpost independent reliable sources have come to light since putting this article forward for deletion. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Lopifalko: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several releases, playing live on various festivals, toured with AnnenMayKantereit and Joan As Police Woman, currently touring for his album in Europe, often in sold out locations. The German wikipedia article has been accessed over 10k in the last three month alone. Nearly a dozen independent refs in the article. Stern is one of the top 3 news magazines in Germany, if he has been interviewed by them, this alone indicates notability. Honestly, what is this about? --NiTen (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @NiTenIchiRyu: What is this about? sources, that is all. Your "nearly a dozen" in the German article is in fact 8. landstreicher-booking.de is certainly not an independent reliable source, the clue is in the name, "booking". thenationalstudent.com and italiamusicexport.com are not either. I don't know about indiemusic.fr. ruhrnachrichten.de and frankenpost.de are much better sources. Clash and Stern I have already mentioned. For the issue with interviews in otherwise independent reliable sources please see Common sourcing mistakes (notability), Interviews and No original research#Notes. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Lopifalko: Thanks for educating me. After 15 years of writing articles for Wikipedia, and over 2,000 articles in the German and over 300 articles in the English Wikipedia this is what I really need. Someone explaining me what "sources" are. I know that some of the sources in the article are not really adequate, but that Stern and Clash dedicate articles to the subject indicate it's notability. And yeah, some of the information on him is only available in the press text from his booking agency. What's the point of waiting til a press outlet copies this text to make it notable? --NiTen (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several sources added by Eastmain.--Cryptowriter (talk) 12:11, 3 June 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. Nomination withdrawn. Seems to be solid keep. Additional coverage was supplied and article updated. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vayyar

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

Terrible reference. Fail WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 17:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article can be better referenced with a little work. Definitely notable.Geewhiz (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Tag for references and move on. I'm added a few references., lots more out there in searches, about company's Walabot and other 3-D imaging devices. Stuff like, Vice (magazine): This 1960s Radar Technology Is Making a Comeback in Self Driving Cars; An Israeli company is giving cars x-ray vision. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even with recent additions, still fails WP:NCORP / WP:ORGDEPTH. It's too soon per review of available sources, which tend to be passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page is genuinely intended for the purpose of providing information on a company in the Israeli semiconductor sector. Please let me know what references/sources/comments need to be edited instead of deleting. This page was not created with the intention of violating any terms. It is simply for the purpose of education college students on this company's use of radar technology. Thank you!
Comment Subject seems notable, i just think content on the page needs to be worked on including sources possibly go through AFC. Lapablo (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Add it to List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments. Their website also alludes to higher dimensional alien technology; add it to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 02:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't sure but it is a solid keep. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're Not Here

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

Fails WP:FILM which has no realible sources with IMDb being an only exception as an only link.. Sheldybett (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources either. funplussmart (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews at IMDb and no entry at Rotten Tomatoes,thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 3 June 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. I find most of the keep arguments to be particularly unconvincing. Notability can not based on, historical importance claimed in the article, it must be based on WP:RS. Bottom line, no references, no article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pachlegaonkar Maharaj

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

Fails WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is his page in Marathi mr:नृसिंह_राजारामपंत_कुळकर्णी (which notes his birth name was "NR Singh Rajarampant Kulkarni"). His Mukteshawar Dal was one of two organizations which became the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and ultimately the BJP.[9] This fact suggests a significant role for the subject in history. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smmurphy, you know that I can read Marathi, right? I work in these domains and there's nothing except trivial scatter mentions of founding Mukteshawar Dal, which got assumed into the folds of RSS. Also, RSS is not BJP. ∯WBG^converse 16:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've read a little bit about the area, it seems to me that both the Hindu Rashtra Sena and the Mukteshwar Dal are encyclopedic. If neither of these were encyclopedic, then I agree that there is not enough material in reliable sources for an article on Pachlegaonkar Maharaj to pass V/NOR/NPOV. If only one were encyclopedic, then this article could redirect to that one - but if his role was significant enough, this article might be useful useful. If both are encyclopedic, then this article seems to serve the readers as a disambiguation of the individuals roles in multiple, encyclopedic organizations, so long as his role passes V/NOR/NPOV. My feeling is that both of the organizations are encyclopedic, and that both are important enough that their founders are good candidates for articles, even if those articles are very short. I'm happy to change my !vote if I'm likely wrong. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smmurphy, those three topics can be written in about two lines at Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh#Founding. Also, WP:NOPAGE. ∯WBG^converse 08:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, English has no hits in Google Scholar and nothing that suggests notability in Google Books, just some mentions in passing. This sub-stub makes a lot of important claims, but they need referencing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Smmurphy, and the historical importance claimed in the article is likely to make him notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mark as stub -- He may be significant, but I cannot tell from this stub. If Smmurphy is correct he should be notable, but we need an article on Mukteshawar Dal to establish that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep^{[citation needed]} -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 02:28, 10 June 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 14:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Claudet

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

The article is about a local parish president and fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The coverage is all local and comes under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable county official. All news sources are routine coverage from the local newspaper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprisingly, even though the subject here is a county-level official in Louisiana, the creator was not Billy Hathorn — but that doesn't mean the principles of WP:NPOL change at all. People at this level of political office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but must clear NPOL #2 as the subject of significant and substantive press coverage that goes beyond just the purely expected mentions of his name in the local media. Of the five media hits here, however, three just glancingly mention Claudet's name in the process of being primarily about other people, while the other two are just routine election coverage — and besides those, the only other references here at all are primary source verification of raw vote totals. This is not how you demonstrate that a county-level official is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 12:21, 4 June 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 14:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surinder Sunar

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing apart from in-universe sources. ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure what ‘in universe’ means in this nomination. He’s a person, not a fictional character. He’s famous for playing poker, so refs to him can be found in poker-related sources. Is this a reason for deletion? Mccapra (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no broad based coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 5 June 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 14:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Lights (band)

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

Advertorially-tinged article about a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no strong reliable source coverage. The notability claims here are that an EP exists and that it has "seen some radio airtime" -- but "notable just because the music exists" requires at least two full albums on major labels, not one independent EP on Bandcamp, and "notable because radio airplay" requires a reliable source to verify that they got playlisted by a national radio network, not just generically unverifiable claims of "some radio airtime". As for the sourcing, every single footnote here is either a primary source or a blog, and not even one of them is a notability-supporting reliable source. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable band per nominators recommendations. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:43, 3 June 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 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Records (Record Label)

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

Originally proposed for deletion by Ravensfire with the reason: "Draft article exists already at Draft:Speed Records (record label), which is where this should be located, but I don't want to move to the draft with wrong caps. See the history at Speed_Records_(record_label) (the right capitalization)." FASTILY 01:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the original draft (with correct caps) is in far better shape and is where work should focus. At best, this should be a redirect to the original draft. This article has seen some significant pushing, probably COI / UDP editing, but I think this latest draft is a good faith effort but needs to be pointed to the right article to develop. Ravensfire (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sourcing here is better and arguably sufficient from reputable sources but I've transferred the sources here to the draft anyway. Its good to see initative of bypassing AfC anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither of the references are about Speed Records itself - label has no notable artists or releases - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE - no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" - no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" - therefore, Delete – Epinoia (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~unreferenced~~ stub about non-notable subject. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how unreferenced stub it an accurate statement. The article clearly has references. You may be saying there are no WP:RS references but that is not what is stated. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public execution in Dębica

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

Tagged with refimprove since 2013, and notability since 2018. Seems it is possible to maybe verify that this took place, however sources treating this run of a mill execution (one of several in the period) in an in-depth fashion are lacking. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of !votes below and the Folia Historica Cracoviensia article that was found.Icewhiz (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. We should have an article on the communist campaign of intimidatory executions in Poland in the period, and this would serve as an example, but we don't seem to have that at the moment. There is some coverage in History of Poland (1945–1989) but this is probably too fine a detail to merge there. So I am saying keep with a view to broadening it out into a more general article. The rationale that this execution is "one of several" has nothing to do with notability, that is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. This event is covered in Czasy Nowożytne, although it disagrees on the date of execution with the book source in the article (10 June against 10 July). SpinningSpark 11:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark: - see Cursed soldiers which would be that article (the fighters of the WiN unit being executed in the picture being but one example). Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge there, I just don't think we should remove it altogether. SpinningSpark 12:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also Freedom and Independence (WiN - the anti-communist unit involved here), and Anti-communist resistance in Poland (1944–1946). The problem with the present article is that it is almost completely un-sourced (other than the lede - whose source is far off from great, to say the least) - much of it may be WP:OR - basically the main thing salvageable here is that the execution happened + the photograph.Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources covering this. 1) cited book by historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz 2) from book by Polish historian pl:Arkadiusz Kołodziejczyk [10] "Trzecia egzekucja publiczna odbyła się 10 lipca na dębickim rynku, zostali tam powieszeni członkowie „oddziału leśnego” Jana Stefki („Mściciel”)." 3) few paragraphs of coverage in this academic article: [11] 4) local media covers events commemorating this, and a monument was unveiled: [12], [13], [14] since 2012 there's a yearly event (2012: "Od 4 lat, w rocznicę ostatniej publicznej egzekucji na dębickim Rynku przy pomniku „Żołnierzy Wyklętych” zapalane są znicze i składane kwiaty przez władze miejskie i przedstawicieli organizacji kombatanckich, samorządowych i mieszkańców miasta."). 5) the picture of the execution gets some coverage too, through I am not sure if it is independently notable. Regional museum had an exhibition for the photographer, mentions this event and the photo here: [15]. Overall, yes, this is a footnote event, but I think there's enough coverage in sources to make it notable. PS. I am surprised this doesn't have a pl wiki entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a plwiki entry what a supporting indication for this nomination. The local coverage (debica.pl is the municipality site, radio/tv Rzeszow is from the closest larger city, muzeumwdebicy.pl is the municipality musuem) of commemoration events at the local square is not in-depth or significant. @Piotrus: - how much content is there in the books? (my estimation based on snippet view is a couple of paragraphs). How much is in the Polish language journal article? Passing WP:V is not sufficient for WP:NEVENT - we expect WP:INDEPTH coverage for notability. Icewhiz (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur that it's 'a couple of paragraph' for both book and the article, and IMHO that's sufficient coverage for notability of a historical event like that, particularly given the other supporting evidence (local media, commemoration). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article is today slight, but would like to see it stand per WP:PRESERVE. Piotr has demonstrated that RS' exist. There is no doubt that this is one of the most haunting images of the 2nd W war. Ceoil (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Short biographies of the three men executed and a few more details are available at: Szczygieł, R. (2014). Oddział Narodowych Sił Zbrojnych pod dowództwem Jana Stefki ps.„Mściciel” w latach 1945–1946 w świetle dokumentów UB. Folia Historica Cracoviensia, 20(1), 205-258. On the basis of that article, Grebosz may himself be encyclopedic. If anyone can confirm the quality of that journal (Folia Historica Cracoviensia), I'd be happy to expand the article to discuss the details from Szczygieł's article. As a note, that article discusses the violence these three were part of and expanding this article to include that information would significantly change the tone of this article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smmurphy: Folia Historica Cracoviensia is a very minor academic journal by a minor Polish university; the journal has no pl wiki article. It is indexed in Index Copernicus ([16]) which is not saying much. But it does not seem predatory, since while open access [17] states that there are no fees for review and publication. I cannot find much about the author, but he seems to have gotten a PhD from the same institution in 2016 ([18]) in the field of history and culture. So, minor historian/publication, but no red flags, I'd call the source reliable unless it makes any red flag claims. Hope that helps :) --05:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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. After being relisted this nomination has garnered only more solid keep arguments. With only three arguments (policy based as well) arguments, the clear consensus that's emerged from this discussion is keep. This is a non-administrator closing and I'm willing to request a review by an admin should anyone who disagrees with this close to request one, or I can reverse this NAC close, however, with that being said - the consensus here seems to be pretty solid and clear after being listed for two weeks. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional diaries

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

Too broad of a list. There are hundreds of fictitious games, and it is constantly growing. Furthermore, what makes these notable? It serves no encyclopedic purpose. Similar articles have been deleted in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (3rd nomination)) JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with "Too broad". Reference to games seems irrelevant. Seems a perfectly reasonable and useful list, not resembling the "fictional films" mentioned above. PamD 05:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, there's no sources that indicate that the three categories are notable as a cohesive list, so it at best violates WP:LISTN and might at worst constitue original research or WP:SYNTH. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit I began this article, in a very stubby form, at a time when categories didn't exist. Now that there is a category to cover these, I don't think it's essential. However, I don't see another article that discusses the characteristics of the genre - maybe I've missed it? If so, I'd be willing to change my vote. Deb (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. There is no real defined scope of this article and it's just a mashup of info that has been randomly found or added because someone was a fan of a particular work. It belongs on a fan website and was created over 16 years ago when standards on Wikipedia were much lower, and I don't believe for a second it would get approved as an article today. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) Could you please clean up your nomination rational, as your copy and pasted rational from this AfD is confusing people here. It might also be beneficial to cite specific policies in your nomination, like WP:LISTN. Thanks. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The reference to games in the nomination indicates its cookie-cutter nature so that the details of the topic have not been considered. There are numerous famous fictional diaries such as The Diary of a Nobody, which is a featured article, and so it is quite ridiculous to suggest that we can't or shouldn't have a list of these. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a featured article is included in a list suddenly makes the list notable is neither based in policy or logic. We have Category: Fictional diaries. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing sudden about Diary of a Nobody as it has been in the list since it was first created in 2003. Yes, that's 2003 – sixteen years ago, when categories didn't exist as a mechanism. Since that time, the list has been edited by hundreds of editors and read by many thousands. As for policy, there's no discernable policy in the nomination – just opinionated arguments to avoid like "serves no encyclopedic purpose". That's quite illogical when the list has outstanding entries like the FA Diary of a Nobody and the vital article The Color Purple. It's this discussion which serves no useful purpose and so it should be speedily closed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It aids in navigation, blue links to similar articles, so is a perfectly valid list article for Wikipedia. To the nominator, what difference does it make if a different article was deleted five years ago after you nominated it three times in a six month period? Those AFDs have nothing to do with this one here. Dream Focus 06:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a great resource for those looking up fictional diaries.
Keep but reduce - I should say that the first section, "Fictional works in diary form", is of a type that can be curated well, and restricted to existing articles. Section 2, "Diaries appearing in fictional works", smells of open-ended listcruft. Section 3, "Hoax diaries" - well... seems a bit out of scope, and I would not mix it in here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete Same basic deal as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies. The article at present is a completely unsourced OR nightmare; whether or not sources theoretically exist that could be used to build a better article, unless they are forthcoming in the article it can't stay. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D and PamD Lubbad85 (☎) 22:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar articles have been deleted in the past, but many are also kept, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (3rd nomination). At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, WP has huge articles of incomplete lists of notable items, but not always in a tightly defined sense. E.g. 2019. The key component that is usually dominant at AfD is whether the individual items are in themselves notable (e.g. have their own WP articles; as per 2019), and the definition of inclusion is not so broad as to be meaningless (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (3rd nomination)). Ths list does meet these criteria and therefore serves as a useful navigation list (like a navbox, but too large to be a navbox) for a reader on the topic. Britishfinance (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen several such large but incomplete lists of notable items at AfD now (often under the nomination of WP:NOTADIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR), we should clarify WP:NLIST to give clear examples that such lists are acceptable in Wikipedia (e.g. 2019), and ones that are not (e.g. where the definition for inclusion is so broad, it is meaningless). This issue has beening going on for a while now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vampires. Britishfinance (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion rationale does not relate to this article, and I don't really understand why this has been relisted - there seems a clear consensus to Keep. There are various suggestions to improve the article, but they are not reasons to delete it, and can be discussed on the article's Talk page. As for whether the topic of fictional diaries is notable - there are already sources in the article, and there are more that could be added (I will try to add some). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has a clear inclusion criteria, and virtually all of the articles on the list have their own article too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I merged a section of another list into this one last year (see Talk:List of fictional diaries § Merge proposal), and I didn't see any reason to question the list's existence then. Some of the arguments for deletion here have been interesting to read, but weighing the arguments for and against deletion, I find the arguments against deletion to be stronger. Especially relevant is, for example, Deb's observation that there is a category for these items (Category:Fictional diaries) but there is no other article that explains what fictional diaries are, and the large quantity of Wikipedia articles on individual fictional diaries shows that such a general explanation is warranted: this list and its lead serves that purpose, and the category alone is not sufficient. Biogeographist (talk) 12:23, 3 June 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 procedural close. AfD is not for merge proposals. Please use the article talk page. Michig (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest Chinese companies

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

Merge to List_of_companies_of_China. As of right now. The split doesn't make sense as they are mostly the same.Viztor (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as nominator. Nomination withdrawn per (Italian) sources added by Mccapra. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party (Switzerland)

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

The party seemingly fails WP:ORGCRIT due to a lack of independent reliable sources. (Maybe there are some sources, in which case I may have missed them due to language barriers; so please share any sources you find.) MrClog (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC); edited 12:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’ve added three refs and could add plenty more. No shortage of news coverage, and they have elected politicians. Sources mainly in Italian. No proper basis for deletion at all. Mccapra (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, thank you for adding the references. As I don't speak Italian, I wasn't able to find those sources, but because they exist, I'll withdraw the nomination. --MrClog (talk) 16:23, 2 June 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 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonistic Imperative

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

Self published manifesto with no effective sources. Fails WP:OR. scope_creep^Talk 11:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nominator, this should never have been in mainspace. Paraphrasing Pauli (or is Schermer more appropriate?), not even wrong vis-a-vis NBOOK. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:38, 4 June 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. Already speedy deleted under G5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 16:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al Mohammed

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

Article about, quote "an international model, dance performer, nutrition and skincare consultant, and recently an entrepreneur and innovator" (permalink) that since has been toned down a bit by the declared paid editor User:Fijigirl333 who's working indirectly for subject. The article was previously deleted under G11 in both main space and in draft space twice, and was declined twice and then rejected at AFC. User:Fijigirl333 has added multiple citations to the article, all are pay-for-play-journalism, and all of them dates later than the 10 April rejection of the draft. User:Fijigirl333 has now moved the unreviewed article from draft space to main space. There is nothing to support a WP:BASIC/WP:GNG pass, or a presumed pass under an SNG like WP:NMODEL. PROD would be the obvious tag for an article like this, but given the persistency with which Omar Al Mohammed tries to promote himself, I take this to AFD assuming we will have a future G4-possibility here. Sam Sailor 08:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand that my vote here would be biased since I am the editor. The subject does not pass WP:NModel but wouldn't WP:Basic or GNG apply for someone who invented the first smart home of the region and a simple search on Google gives me several citations? Of these, I have included a few. I wasnt aware this page was deleted before. The drafts were clearly not accurately written so I'm happy to draftify it if I can get feedback. Not sure why all the citations would be considered pay for play. A few of them are major local and international ones. Also, will further make this non promotional if needed. Thanks for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fijigirl333 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC) — Fijigirl333 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dhirenmb (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Further info at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ghafarado/Archive. Sam Sailor 16:17, 2 June 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 Google Glass. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google Glass breastfeeding app trial

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

The subject of this article, an event from 2014, fails to meet notability criteria for events (Wikipedia:Notability (events)). The event had a bit of news coverage in 2014 and no further coverage, or evidence of impact, since then. The subject is covered with a section in the Google Glass article; a separate article is unnecessary.

If we look at this article as being about a type of health intervention rather than being about a news event, I'm afraid it's even worse. This article promotes the POV that Google Glass is an effective tool for helping women breastfeed, based on a tiny trial (6 patients!), and the results were apparently not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Our normal standard for sourcing of health-related claims is that we do not include claims that are based on the results of single clinical trials, even if they are peer reviewed. This article clutters up Category: Breastfeeding with highly commercial, trivial, poor-quality information. Our readers who are interested in breastfeeding deserve much better than this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for deletion under a previous title. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Google_Glass_Breastfeeding_app_trial

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification placed on Talk:Breastfeeding [19] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification placed on the talk page for Wikiproject Medicine [20] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is basically a spam article. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or, at worst, selectively merge to Google Glass. I'm surprised it had no ongoing impact (e.g. the roll-out of an app) but it certainly had significant news coverage across a variety of (mainly Australian) news outlets over a period of several months. This is 'notability', regardless of the size of the trials or their scientific validity. I can't see any unsubstantiated claims in the article, but things like that can be addressed by clean-up, rather than deletion. The small paragraph in the Google Glass article doesn't really do the subject justice at the moment. Sionk (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Google Glass (first choice) or keep. This Wikipedia article is linked in this 2018 news story. The trial is mentioned in this 2016 journal article, this 2015 book chapter, this 2017 journal article, and others. This 2017 article (or maybe "blog post"; I'm not sure) says that the trial was still underway then, but I doubt that's true. Few of these appear to be long explanations (I see more instances of a sentence or two, amounting to little more than "Hey, they tried this" as an example of how virtual reality could be used in health-related contexts), but it is getting some ongoing attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google glass. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google Glass. It skates a bit close to implying efficacy based on a five subject trial, but the article has something to say about an innovative use of Google Glass. At 22 kB of editable prose, the Google Glass article has no need of being split off into smaller articles, so it's really difficult to justify having a separate article for any particular application. Even when topics are sufficiently notable, it's not automatic that we maintain a separate article when the topic can be productively handled inside a larger one. --RexxS (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge per RexxS and Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense. There are enough references to justify a paragraph at least. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odero Peter Otieno

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

Does not satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only has primary sources. A web search does not show up much of anything, let alone independent reliable sources for Odero Peter Otieno or Odero Otieno.

The article makes no claim of why the subject is notable aside from education awards / scholarship, concluding only that he co-founded a company "that seeks to make ... deliveries ... and give in-app microloans".

Reads like a CV and is written by a user using the same name as the subject of the article. Another contributor to the article is a username with the same name for which there is a redirect from, Francis Odhiambo, to Odero Peter Otieno. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this person has gained some attention (this speaks to that) there isn't sufficient reliable, secondary sources attesting to his notability to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. I am troubled as well about the creator's WP:IDHT attitude in having his draft rejected (see Draft:Odero Otieno), and then subsequently creating the article in mainspace anyway, with essentially the same material. Further, the editor appears likely to be the subject of the article, based on usernames. WP:AUTOBIO comes into play here. I've placed uw-autobiography warnings on the talk pages of the two accounts in question. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment From a quick scan I think the only difference between the rejected draft and the article in mainspace as it now stands is what I removed from it in mainspace—inline external links, and sources that were mere mentions of the thing described itself and not of him and the thing. -Lopifalko (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this autobiography, which looks like it will continue to be re-created otherwise. Miniapolis 19:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability found in a search, some of the sources given don't even mention him, what sources there are are just trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Also strong likelihood of self-promotion. Delete the redirects as well. Hzh (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him an article, so the notability standard he would have to meet is that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG — but the references here are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting media coverage. Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which people are entitled to place their résumés in order to boost their web presence because they lack conventional media coverage — the depth of media coverage a person does or doesn't have is the notability test that determines whether they get a Wikipedia article or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given by Bearcat. Article is promotional Lubbad85 (☎) 17:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Perissinotto

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

Only reference is his own website Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Other references can be found with WP:BEFORE and referring to the corresponding article in the Italian Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, leave tag for citations needed in place, and move on. If you retain a little high school Latin (or can actually read Italian) this simple gNews search is dispositive: Dopo il grande successo di libri quali “Le colpe dei padri”, Alessandro Perissinotto torna in libreria con un nuovo romanzo, il cui titolo descrive .... Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recent updates suggest that the subject is in fact notable, although it would be nice if a fluent Italian speaker could link a few more sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw the proposal. He's clearly notable. Rathfelder (talk) 19:08, 6 June 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. Seems like the arguments in favour of the topic being notable are carrying the day as there is little evidence of - quote Spinningspark - "embellishment and circular referencing". At the same time, the concerns raised by ST47 probably merit a maintenance tag on the article, so going for that as well and a post to WP:FTN where they are experienced and cleaning up potentially problematic Forteana articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woman in Black (supernatural)

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

Notabililty. Qwirkle (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources appear to be particularly reliable. "Virginia Creeper" appears to be a personal blog, not a real magazine. The several books of ghost stories are almost certainly highly embellished to sensationalize the supernatural and possibly circular references. Not anything written down as "Hauntings, Strange Happenings, and Other Local Lore" is notable. Reywas92^Talk 07:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suspect there is some confusion between unreliable and unscientific going on here. The sources aren't so bad. The most accessible souce that I looked at, The Big Book of Virginia Ghost Stories, is published by Stackpole Books, a well established publisher. The author cites the story to named, contemporary newspapers. On the face of it, it is a reliable source, from a reliable publisher, providing secondary analysis from primary sources. Frankly, for a subject such as this, we couldn't ask for a better source. Accusations of embellishment and circular referencing need some evidence before we start rejecting putative reliable sources. SpinningSpark 17:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote the article, because it appeals to the folklore and superstitions and ghost stories of Appalachia. There are a number of different sources for the phantom which appeared at different times and different places, in different states, sometimes for good and sometimes not. It is a short but accurate article. The fact that the stories of the woman in black are over a hundred years old, and still told by the Roanoke Times, shows current interest. And of course, this is what Wikipedia is for- the inclusion of information that is not usually found in other printed encyclopedias, but in a larger, online version, that can be used as a springboard for further investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadden (talk • contribs) 00:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but needs work. The article is written as though 1) the sightings are true, and 2) the sightings are all of the same, real, thing. If this was a topic from a work of fiction, I'd say it's written too much "in-universe". The sourcing is fine, it's notable as a supernatural phenomenon, however it's written as though there's an actual being named "Woman in Black", not a few old ghost stories with similar features. ST47 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but agree with ST47. /Julle (talk) 16:43, 2 June 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. Consensus seems to be that WP:ACADEMIC is not met Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen E. Broady

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

While accomplished, and this article is well written, most of the references are press releases, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG, the citation count is quite anemic (a high of 6), and there doesn't appear to be any other qualifying points to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is the vice-provost of Kentucky State University, and has been an academic at other Historically black colleges and universities. Prior to that she was at Howard University, Dominican University, Fort Valley State University, Atlanta Metropolitan State College. She seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC. This article needs development, not deletion. There is a lot out there to find via a simple Google search. Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - exactly how do you feel that she meets WP:ACADEMIC. None of her qualifications meet any of the guidelines under that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In American universities only the president or similar top academic offier is default notable for that position. A few universities probably have enough influence that we could find enough sourcing on any Provost to show they are notable. This would probably apply to say Bruce C. Hafen, the only Provost BYU ever had (at others times the university has had an academic vice president). However Hafen passes notability in several other ways (says the person who created the article on Hafen and then saw it nearly deleted, it was my second article and I had not yet begun to cite.) However later examples like James Rasband and C. Shane Reese do not pass because they were academic vice president, or even because they were deans of specific colleges, although both maybe should lead to passes, but because they held named academic chairs. Reese also might pass another aademically notability criteria because he is a fellow of the American Statistical Association. However vice provosts are just plain not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 5 June 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 Labour for Independence#List of notable members. As a procedural note, it's not necessary to go to AfD to perform a merge. Consensus can be gained with less effort on the talk pages, or just be WP:BOLD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Grogan

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

This rather minor political figure does not appear to pass notability. Anything significant can be merged with the article on Labour for Independence, itself a rather short-lived campaign which may have folded.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has a reasonably significant amount of coverage from national newspapers. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Labour for Independence, his group. Coverage appears to be superficial and all related to this group. Sandstein 14:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Labour for Independence#List of notable members doesn't have individual pages for all whom are listed. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fallon (actress)

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

The only cited information is that this person was the first to squirt on camera. Aside from that we don't have anything meaningful. Fails GNG, BLP1E and ENT. Maybe a redirect to an article about squirting might be better. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This actor is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet !vote --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.Anupam(talk) 18:55, 02 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as suggested, not independently notable and the claim is somewhat dodgy considering the long history of porn, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Geoffroi (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing comes even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost could be summarized in one sentence. ("X" is a "Y" who has done "Z") Not notable. Rollidan (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Rogers Brown

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

Notability fail. I did quite and extensive search and came up with zero evidence of in-depth coverage. The current article sources are just boilerplate bios and institutional staff pages. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the time being. No sources found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete agree w nom. 9H48F (talk) 13:23, 3 June 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 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mou Rong (Tang dynasty)

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

This article may not meet the WP:GNG guidelines required for inclusion. Note that this is about the person from the Tang dynasty, not about Mou Rong from the Han dynasty, who is verifiable, if not notable. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 00:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 00:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 00:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is mentioned in this Journal of Chinese Studies article as the "obscure early ninth-century figure Mou Rong". 188.216.192.206 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It's an unsourced one-line substub. Although his poem(s) are included in the Tang poem anthology, I couldn't find any info about this person except a Baidu page that says he was fabricated by Ming dynasty people (not sure how reliable that is). In any case, this page is completely useless in its current state. The Han dynasty Mou Rong, on the other hand, it definitely notable. -Zanhe (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he were indeed included in the Three Hundred Tang Poems, that would make him ipso facto highly notable. As for unsourced, see my previous comment. 188.216.192.206 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But are his poems in fact included in the Three Hundred Tang Poems? His name doesn't appear in the list of poets in that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I wrote "If he were ...".188.216.192.3 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Chastain

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

Article subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. – Levivich 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 00:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 00:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass NFOOTY and I doesn't see any indication he passes GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to come close to meeting either WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 5 June 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.