Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 March	13 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Tziva[edit]

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

Seems to be a BLP1E. (I am generally reluctant to use this criterion for deletion in borderline cases, but this seems clear enough) DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a civil servant who does her job. No trace of notability. (Is it possible that the real subject [target] of this article is Marinakis? -i.e. to imply that Marinakis is a criminal.) ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See WP:MILL. Wikipedia is not a directory of all lawyers in existence, let alone random public prosecutors. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The first reference is a broken link, and the other two do not provide any real in depth coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG as of today.BabbaQ (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though i have seen some mentions from search with "Ειρήνη Τζίβα" but currently not enough for a page. Lapablo (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Me too agree she's just doing her job and no WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23 per WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burngoberrie: Bigger, Under & Uncut[edit]

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

Fails GNG, could find no reliable coverage beyond a Fandom Wikia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:35, 12 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Force and Determination (Hungary)[edit]

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

Unregistered, unofficial, non-notable movement (and not party), which did not participate in the 2018 general election. Norden1990 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searches show that this is a far-right wing political movement, not a party. There is quite a bit of sourcing, so I am LEANING KEEP. My basic perspective is that our users find it useful to be able to look up extreme political movements on Wikipedia, and there seems to be enough sourcing to justify a page o this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on available sourcing Reuters [[1]], Al Jazeera [[2]], Fox News [[3]] and Euronews [[4]]. I agree that it should be called a right wing political organization or movement, as pointed out above. BTW - the article creator was banned as part of the ongoing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician sock investigation, but it's still a notable group based on our coverage guidelines. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23 per WP:CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burngoberrie[edit]

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

Fails GNG, could find no reliable coverage beyond a Fandom Wikia. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 22:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not going to vote for this as I'm not sure, but the creators pages seem to be unotable as of now. Also check out this one Burngoberrie: Bigger, Under & Uncut (which someone did put some tags on) Wgolf (talk) 22:24, 12 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logan's Challenge[edit]

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

This is an article on an running event that took place in 2009. Almost all of the references in the article point only to schedules in different websites and I could not find any coverage of the event anywhere for it to pass WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any notability here; the official website suggests the 2010 edition never happened. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect the page was created under a COI, as the user "SparksCharity" could easily be the Sparks Charity that supposedly benefitted from the event. Half the sources are generic/dead links, and I can't see this passing GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable event, sources are websites linked to the event or mere trivial announcements. Fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Albert (composer)[edit]

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

This article does not meet the Notability in the English Wikipedia Please tell us why this article should not be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamzine13 (talk •contribs) 07:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC) struck blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr. Albert has been extensively featured in his local newspapers [5], [6], [7], but he probably needs more reliable coverage from outside his region to really pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:COMPOSER. Hasn't won a major music competition not for newcomers. Actaudio (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: OP blocked as a sockpuppet, and so this needs more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in German reliable sources and has been nominated/won for a number of awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players from Hong Kong[edit]

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

I don't see any indication that reliable sources have written about "Major League Baseball players from Hong Kong" as a group; the article as written includes exactly one such person, and articles cited do not appear to show that there is much special attention given to that individual's origin.

Previously nominated for PROD by Steve Quinn with the justification Sources do not support the topic which is "List of MLB players from Hong Kong". Multiple reliable sources also do not support the only player "listed". There is only one questionable RS for the player listed. Perhaps this is a coatrack to give publicity to a marginal player that has a meager track record.. DePROD by the initial editor without justification.

I am also nominating for deletion List of Major League Baseball players from China, the only other article in the "Major League Baseball players by national origin" category that features only one individual, without significant attention from reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both One item does not a list make. Timmyshin (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of notability (of the group in general) for a stand-alone list --DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough items to warrant a stand-alone list. Capitals00 (talk) 06:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, for two reasons. 1.) Both of these lists currently contain only one single entry, and a list with only one entry is arguably not really a list at all. 2.) The name of these two lists are List of Major League Baseball players from Hong Kong and List of Major League Baseball players from China, however, both of the entries (Austin Brice and Harry Kingman) on these lists are actually Americans who were born overseas (Brice was born in Hong Kong while his father was working in construction there, and Kingman was born to missionary parents in China). That would be like creating an List of American football players from the Philippines and including Tim Tebow on it. Though they were born there, arguably neither Brice nor Kingman are actually "from" Hong Kong or China. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, obviously. Might as well call them List of Major League Baseball players named Austin Brice/Harry Kingman. -Zanhe (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that a potential List of American Major League Baseball players born outside the United States or something like that might be a valid topic for a list article. But, that's neither here nor there in terms of these particular articles. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, no reliable sources, Alex-h (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both of them as like a few people have said further up, one person doesn't make a list because you think of a list, it's like five or six people not one. Not Homura (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. Lapablo (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus on sourcing alone makes this a clear Keep (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tristram Jones-Parry[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Minor kerfuffle with the government is unnoteworthy. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have held in the past that headmasters of major public schools such as Westminster should be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it certainly seems that quite a number of those listed at Westminster School#Headmasters have articles about them, although I haven't checked how many are notable for other reasons. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reason. GooglerW (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as educational activist. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There is enough for WP:GNG on this subject in major UK WP:RS: BBC, Times, Telegraph, Telegraph. He is also referenced in books. Britishfinance (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep job and sourcing = keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a notable headmaster Alex-h (talk) 21:51, 19 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Studies (Stockholm University)[edit]

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

Not notable in itself. I don't think there's a SNG for specific courses or subdivisions of educational institutions but per GNG this isn't notable. Appears to be an advert for a course. SITH (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Article violated WP:NOTADVERTISING and it's Not notable in itself, so delete the Article.Forest90 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Forest90. 99.149.252.139 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suure-Jaani United[edit]

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

Per WP:NTEAM. Club plays in a low-level league and has not achieved anything which could make it notable. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this team competed in the Estonian Cup and made it to the Round of 32, that deems to be notable. Not Homura (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Soccerway has competed (in numerous seasons) in the national cup, the standard benchmark for club notability. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasoning as those above. R96Skinner (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find a single article on the team in a before search. I see one about women's futsal and one about how a bunch of Estonians from Suure-Jaani United went to Poland for three days (an article each in Estonian and Polish). This [8] is primary. Also has only played three cup games, the most recent one of which they lost in the first round 8-0. That's it. This is not a notable football team per WP:GNG, but would not mind merging any verifiable information into the club they merged into, Põhja-Sakala (football club) (and improving that article as needed.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed in the national cup, the fact that they happened to lose some of their games is irrelevant. Everyone loses some of their games. Smartyllama (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find a single non-directory source which discusses one of their national cup games. None of the keep votes have discussed the absolute lack of sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to America's Next Top Model (season 18)#Contestants. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candace M. Smith[edit]

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

Appears to be a minor actress; it does not seem clear that she is notable as a contestant on a reality show only (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As of now she doesn’t meet NMODEL or NACTRESS for an article. Trillfendi (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than 1 notable television/movie appearance from her, plus other actresses with less notability have pages here. Also 20 sources is not lacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.87.40 (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASSERTN, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Linguist111^{my talk page} 15:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per norm. Currently doesn't satisfy WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTRESS. Lapablo (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect to America's Next Top Model (season 18) if not kept, per WP:ATD-R. The only non-primary, non-routine sources I found are these [9][10][11]. I’m not sure if they are "official" (not user-generated) enough, though. Fails WP:ENT, might fail WP:GNG. I also want to point out that someone has started a canvassing thread on Reddit [12]. Linguist111^{my talk page} 15:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple television/movie apperances, plus sources such as interviews by independent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.239.16.126 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mere TV appearances do not count, they have to be appearances of note. Not everyone with at least two lines in IMDb gets a Wikipedia page. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111^{my talk page} 17:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America's Next Top Model (season 18)#Cast. Promotional content that fails WP:NMODEL and WP:NACTRESS, with minor acting roles that aren't significant. Many but not all Top Model cast members have Wikipedia articles (see Template:America's Next Top Model), and they were often notable for other reasons. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBA on ABC game history[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE; WP:FANCRUFT --wooden superman 16:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a TV guide. No one looking at historical results cares what network games aired on. Is someone going to use Wikipedia to analyze that the Cavaliers do better on games aired by ABC than by ESPN? Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No one cares what NBA games are aired on TV and when. The only thing encyclopedic about this is the game results, which will appear elsewhere anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing fails WP:LISTN. There is already an article on topic of NBA on ABC.—Bagumba (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT Basketball Reference, where all this information exists under that site's remit. Nate • (chatter) 05:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Ajif. Individual games are not really that notable, unless the broadcast itself was notable which this page does not cover. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 00:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN. Lapablo (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here leans to keep, though problems are noted. At least no one raised the suspicion of socking, so that's something. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qooro taag[edit]

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

~~My current assessment is that this article is a hoax, as I cannot find any evidence in reliable sources that this massacre occurred or that a village was named after it.~~ Of the three sources currently cited, #1 is an unpublished thesis paper which does not appear to mention "qooro taag" in any capacity, and #3 also does not appear to mention "qooro taag". #2 is not a reliable source. Searching online, several unreliable sources describe a massacre in almost identical terms to the current article, but I can't find anything solid. Moreover, while Google Translate can definitely make mistakes, "erect penis" is not a suggested translation of "qooro taag". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC) 20:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons unless anyone can find evidence to the contrary. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revoking deletion vote per discussion below. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

Firstly, just because a source is not in English, doesn't make it unreliable. Furthermore, you should note that Somaliland, the successor state of SNM has been trying to keep such war crimes quiet. This even happened this month; see for example this source that details the killings in Borama literally a month before the Qooro Taag incident February 1991 and regularly jails critics.
Markus Hoehne is arguably the most knowledgeable author on northern Somalia today. How are his writings unreliable? Nobody as far as I know has published more books on the Sool, Saanaag or Cayn regions. He combines his academic skills with field work and has been in all these places. I have just added a quote to prove that Hoehne does in fact use the term.
As for translation taag is a somali word that means upright, but it sometimes needs suffixes to work on google translate; try "taagan". Qooro is slang for penis, but once again, since it has other meanings, its more useful if you use a suffix. For example google the term "qoorihiisa" (where i added the suffix hiisa meaning "his"). Most returns will have discussions that speak of this nature.
Pure knowledge of the tensions will dictate that this event is plausible, when you consider the SNM's anger at the 1988 Isaaq genocide which they often blame on Darood clan members as a whole. This massacre happened as soon as the Siad Barre government collapsed when they knew there would be no repercussions.
In the rest of the chapter, Hoehne explains that most people in Sool acknowledge that this event happened.
Please do not whitewash crimes against isolated minorities by the Somali National Movement, especially when you consider that the Somali source claims that ~~Bihi (the current president of Somaliland) was involved~~.

92.19.189.134 (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move & cleanup Move to "Bancadde", as that is what it is referred to in the only vaguely reliable English Language source. Hoehne's dissertation uses the name "Bancadde". The Qooro Taag name appears based off a single, poorly translated, interview with a Somali. Cleanup I think includes removing the "Qoroo Taag" story, while still mentioning the massacre. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 07:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qooro Taag is the name of the massacre. This topic has huge geopolitical significance since it is partially why the whole Sanaag, Cayn and Sool regions remain disputed. These massacres are still going on; for example this incident where a hundred died only 4 months ago where one side was backed by the SNM succeeders. If we don't document the background to these killings that happen every year and merely mention the locality, then it merely leaves people confused.
Comment Since several commentators on this page have insunuated that non-English sources are no good, it stands to reason that this discussion is a pandora's box that means we will have to review Wikipedia's policies on non-English sources. The relevant policy is WP:NOENG and I'm willing to open a discussion there to see if that paragraph needs to be reviewed courtesy of comments by Rosguill, Lusotitan and Captain Eek. 92.19.189.134 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folks weren't saying they were no good, but rather that they didn't have an accompanying translation, and thus folks couldn't judge if they were/weren't reliable, or what they even said. We sure do allow non-English sources, but they need translation, and machine translation tends not to be great. The machine translation shows that the "salaan media" source doesn't mention "Qooro Taag", and rather calls the village "Bancade". The "Sagal News" source also doesn't call it Qooro tag, and rather uses "Bancadde".Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But all the articles are about the broader tensions that exists between Dhulbahante and Isaaq who are either directly warring (through states such as Khatumo (Dhulbahante-dominated) or Somaliland (Isaaq dominated). This incident is important because it is arguably the first flashpoint for all the subsequent wars that have happened since, but euphemisms are rife, so you have to read between the lines. Also, for laypeople, terms such as "reer Jibril" or "aden Naleeye" seem confusing, but to sum up, these are sub-clans of the Dhulbahante. 92.19.189.134 (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles don't say anything about "Qoroo taag", then we can't really say anything about it. And alas, we can't read between the lines because that would be original research, which we don't allow. Sources call the village "Bancadde", and it seems the article is going to serve double duty as an article both about the town and the massacre, so we should call it what sources call it. Perhaps that is coatracking, but I don't know if there is even enough info to justify one article, let alone two. Also, please try to not edit your comments after you've made them, and instead just make new comments, or make an addendum at the end that says Edit: blah blah blah. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The village Bancadde is so small and nomadic that it seems pointless to make; it might not even exist in a few years time if residents suddenly exhort more nomadism. This massacre however, lives on in people's memories, thereby assesses geopolitical leanings and as such is the more notable topic. But since this area is to some extent cut-off from outside contact, more leeway should be given for any content that comes out of it. Naima Qorane is one example of many others whose voices are silenced in this area. Hoehne is as far as I know the only independent western social researcher who visited this area. 92.19.189.134 (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translation The main concern about translation I have seen concerns the title. Thereby I suggest that you translate the term "cawradooda" which is used in the allsanaag article and means genitalia but for some reason is translated as "nakedness" on Google translate. But I hope the term nakedness is at least accepted as a near-synonym of the way it is used in the article. Since we now have both English and Somali authors using this term who are independent of each other, I think its a solid entry. 92.19.189.134 (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move and clean up per Captain Eek. There’s more work needed on this to provide context that will allow the general reader to understand it, and we need better explanations of things than “hulseyistic mooseknuckle”. ~~There’s a reference to the massacre.~~ One thing that concerns me though is that although the massacre apparently took place in 1991, the earliest reference to it seems to be in Hill, in 2010. Given that there are so many Somali websites, discussion forums etc. I’m surprised to see no mentions earlier than this. Indeed online all the articles I can find on a google search were created in 2016. This pattern might be consistent with partisan ‘recovered memory’ of an atrocity that took place an unverifiably long time ago being pushed for some political end. Mccapra (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming "they had erections showing" gives the impression they were nude when they were not. That's why terms such as "bulge" are better I think. 92.19.189.134 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does not seem like a hoax - as this PhD dissertation (ref2 in article at present) from Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg describes a witness account of the incident on page 357 (page 386) - including the erection bit. I would question whether this meets gng as a standalone - and if not, whether it should be merged to a relevant timeline article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I get an ‘access denied message with the link to that PhD dissertation. What’s the date on the dissertation and does it provide a source for claims about this massacre? Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2011. It a s3 link and they die - google scholar search "Political Orientations and Repertoires of Identification: State and Identity Formation in Northern Somalia" - there is a working pdf link on the search.Icewhiz (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I don't think that the mass killing was a hoax, but I think the article fails OR/NPOV. One source is a news article which was written the same day the AfD started[13] which brings in a significant BLP issue (associating the massacre with Muse Bihi Abdi) and which seems odd. This is the only source that would suggest this massacre has RS which discuss it as a single event. Hoehne groups the event with other killings of Dhulbahante (although he does use the wording Bancadde massacre). The other sources don't seem to mention this event. I look forward to more sources discussing this tragedy in particular and about the 1991 bloodshed in general, but to me, this article fails OR. I'd support merging or keeping with an expanded scope. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the timestamp on that date is not a date; it is simply a calender. Tomorrow, that date will say "26th of February". That news sources is several years old. As for lack of sourcing, look at the date. This event happened a few months after the collapse of the government, and basically most institutions including news agencies collapsed. 79.67.84.230 (talk) 07:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article looks a bit different now, and I think partiality issues may have been addressed since it now includes a background and context. The similar incident only 1 month apart has a higher death tally; maybe that makes it more important and as such maybe it should be moved to "Borama and Dilla massacres"? Just a suggestion. 79.67.84.230 (talk) 08:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment I'm striking my assessment of the article as a hoax, as it appears to be clear that this is not the case. However, I remain concerned that several of the currently assembled sources may not be reliable, and many of them do not refer to the incident described as "Qooro taag", which leads me to believe that at the very minimum the article should be moved to a more appropriate title, as we would otherwise be in possible WP:SYNTH territory. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the name "qooro taag" was carefully chosen by SNM militants to contrast with goc taag (raised napkin), a symbol for peace, as a sign of exhibiting the opposite sentiment. Otherwise why such a close usage of words? The goc taag incident (that occured 4 months prior btw) was what was supposed to have ushered in peace. Moving the page would hide the double entendre that exists here. That's why I think the current title is most apt. 92.13.131.12 (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The name may be clever, but in an encyclopedia what's more important is that the name is recognizable by people who are looking for the article. Can you provide citations to reliable sources demonstrating that this is a commonly used title for the subject? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 12 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Webster[edit]

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

I am afraid this fails WP:NBIO. The subject had an average career, and does not seem to have received any awards, nor held positions that grant auto-notability. There is also not much in the terms of in-depth coverage, through it does seem that his brush with death and medical operation generated some interviews/coverage ([14]), [15]), but I don't think that is sufficient (WP:ONEEVENT, WP:INTERVIEW). With all due respect, I am not seeing what makes this individual notable. Not all journalists, even the ones that get on TV, are notable (see also WP:CREATIVE). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a reasonable amount of "media personality" coverage but it is all very routine. Sure they have "done a good job" but I see nothing that makes them notable, awards, specific creativity, etc. Aoziwe (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Typical local newscaster coverage but nothing to show he's more notable than tens of thousands of other TV newscasters.Sandals1 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as presenter of long time presenter of national television show {Sports Tonight). -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable host of news bulletins, Sports Tonight and radio programs. Reliable secondary sources exist and meets WP:CELEBRITY -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for above two keeps. Sorry I have to ask, but what is the basis for the assertion that the subject is notable? Have they won, eg, a Walkley or a Logie? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award is not the only criteria. WP:CELEBRITY states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions....}} which I would contend he has. But it is in vein anyway because this is always overlooked and such articles are always deleted so I really am becoming disponded with engaging anyway -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based the past few AfDs that you mention, I'd think that it is becoming a WP:COMMONOUTCOME that being a host of a TV show or a news presenter does not constitute "asignificant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Truth be told, I would personally veer towards 'it may constitute' for TV show hosts, who are after all named, and sometimes even have the shows named after them. But for regular news presenters (anchors), who are generally anonymous speaking heads to the rest of the world, I don't think this constitutes much for notability. Here is another way of thinking about this: people watch some shows (movies, etc.) not because of the plot or such, but because of the actors/hosts, the names are what drew them to the show. This is what makes one a celebrity. Is this the case here? Webster was a host of the Sports Tonight (Australian TV program), one of several. Did people tune in to the show for him or for the sport news? Since AFAIK he didn't get any awards or coverage of himself as the above-average host, I think it is the latter, which means I do not think he passes NCELEBRITY or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well then an RfC to change the wording of WP:CELEBRITY might be something worth doing sooner rather than later. As its written now, I think he qualifies. It doesn't state the host has to be a certain level of popular or winner of an award. It states "significant roles in multiple [productions]" and I would think hosting a national sports television program, sports anchor on the primetime news bulletin, and hosting multiple radio programs (especially his current role taking over from the legendary Bob Rogers!) meets that qualification. Establishing notability shouldn't be about being more popular than someone else with an established article, it should be about meeting a notability requirement independently, and I think he and others similar meet this. I appear to be in a minority, at least at AfDs, but that's my view. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable to any person in Australia that owns a television. The deletionist arguments perplex me. If we begin deleting articles like this one, where does it end? Do we delete Sandra Sully, Narelda Jacobs, Charmaine Dragun, Brad McEwan, John Stanley (radio broadcaster) ? Unoc (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I own a TV and I have never heard of the subject. I have heard of some of the others above.) Aoziwe (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember this is not a vote. Can you word your argument in policy? Because you are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. As for links to other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is again not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, my argument was lacking. My belief that this article has enough merit to remain on Wikipedia is based on the facts that this person has had significant roles in multiple television shows and radio programs and has been the subject of numerous comedy acts in Australia, referenced in Internet memes demonstrating a position in the public consciousness and popular culture. Meets the criteria for WP:CELEBRITY. Unoc (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article references show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources hence passes Notabilty. - Samuel Wiki (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel Wiki: Could you clarify which references show significant coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] - Samuel Wiki (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are beginning to sway me. Do you have any more? I suggest that the Steve Irwin ref is not at all a serious one, at least one of these seems to be BY Webster so does not count, and a couple are behind paywalls, but there are few good ones too. Aoziwe (talk) 10:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even excluding those you've mentioned, there is more than enough sources to meet WP:BASIC requirement of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources". The other references used in the article with less significant coverage also add up to further demonstrate notability (first bullet point of WP:BASIC). - Samuel Wiki (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[24] - nice find, half interview, but the other half seems like proper analysis, so I think it passes.

[25] - I think this is more about the show and not about him, with the subject being discussed in passing, so nope.

[26] - almost entirely based on quotes from the subject, so fail.

[27] - reads like press relaase, so fail

[28] - half press release, half quotes from the subject, fail

[29] - this is written by the subject, so complete fail per PRIMARY

[30] - seems effectively based on the above and/or an interview with him, and contains too much quotes and not enough independent analysis IMHO to constitute in-depth coverage, also focuses on a single incident in his life, so further fails in-depth

[31] That's a more serious (less quotes, more analysis) treatment of the same incident. Reliable, but again focusing only on a single incident from his life. Can someone be notable when majority of coverage is about WP:ONEEVENT?

So, bottom line, I see one good source, and maybe 1-2 more borderline that are ONEEVENT-ish. Sorry, I am afraid I stand by my nom as I don't believe sufficient coverage has been found to invalidate my claim made in the OP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources brought by User:Samuel Wiki meet WP:BASIC, WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 19 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Emcee[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. The only chart his single appears on is Reverbnation, which is basically a PR firm. Was moved to draft in order to incubate, and was moved back after the addition of a single, non-RS source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Blatantly self-promotional material for non-notable rapper – might be WP:TOOSOON but at the moment he definitely doesn't pass notability. The majority of the text is WP:COPYVIO from his own Wordpress blog [32]. The songs don't appear to be available anywhere except his own social media websites. Even if this was kept it would probably require at least a hatnote to differentiate it from MC Shan. Notifying I dream of horses that the AfC has been bypassed. Richard3120 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entity has the google knowledge panel in this name[33] and is verified on google[34]. The article may need certain changes and more sources. A hatnote can be provided for the resolution of chances of conflict. Shant Ramtirth (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Shant Ramtirth (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a coincidence that your name is exactly the same as that of the subject of this article? If you are him, or related to him, or work for him, you should declare your conflict of interest. Richard3120 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject skipped AfC but left the tag on. Would never have passed AfC and they violated the WP:COI policy by putting in mainspace. G11 applies Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable musician with no independent in-depth coverage, only ever appeared in an insignificant chart. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Could easily have been speedy deleted as unambiguous promotion as it appears to have been created by the person himself, as well as for being an unremarkable musician. Hzh (talk) 14:43, 19 March 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. (procedural close) (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeless Land: Fight for Survival[edit]

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

Probably fails WP:NVIDEOGAMES, with sources which contains spam. Sheldybett (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 12 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lee (businessman)[edit]

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

Basically a promotional article. The references are primarily blogs, sources of unclear significance, and things that he's written. Claim that he is the "only known futurist to forecast victory for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections" is unsupported by the sources given. Other claims of significance have to do with being adjacent somehow to other notable things and events (Elon Musk, Christiaan Barnard). Also possible paid editing, since the author's name is connected to a PR firm. ... discospinster _talk 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guideliness for businesspeople. Overly promotional, with infobox full of uncited information including details about family members (not needed on Wikipedia). References are not significant. Creator is a SPA with a suspicious edit history, with exactly 10 recent minor edits just to get autoconfirmed status. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Not reliable independent sources Alex-h (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not qualify under WP:ARTIST, and under GNG or ANYBIO we have just a pile of sketchy sources that don't support notability clearly.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Scanty sources, fails WP:SIGCOV. Probably a promotion piece too. Lapablo (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Page speedy-deleted as G4, created by blocked or banned user Vhacker Vicky kadian Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sakshi Maggo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BLP and WP:NACTOR due to only one major roles in 2015 so far. Sheldybett (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep this actress from India is notable enough to have Wikipedia article, she has done pretty notable work in Mainstream (Commercial) Bollywood Film. This Google Result will tell you if she is notable or not.SZ1999 (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment striking out post from an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:45, 15 March 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Andrew Wilson[edit]

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

PROD contested. Not meeting WP:NFOOTY as yet to appear in a fully professional league. Hitro talk 09:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FPL list needs to be updated then, because the Danish 1st Division is fully professional, since a few years. User:Bocanegra, 10:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May you provide with some references to verify this claim? This would be helpful for this discussion as well as for the WikiProject Football. Hitro talk 10:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether 2nd-tier Danish 1st Division (beneath Danish Superliga) possibly meets NFOOTY (not in current list) is immaterial, as this subject does not meet WP:GNG and NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of GNG. Per my BEFORE all we have is a WP:ROUTINE signing announcement (which is mainly PR flap from the club as well) as a few brief mentions in match reports in possibly non-reliable sources. As we are clearly lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - subject simply does not have SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nykøbing FC is a fully professional club, playing in the Danish 1st Division which consists primarily of fully professional clubs, and some semi-pro's, meaning that Jordan Wilson indeed has played fully professional matches. I added a source from a regional - RELIABLE - newspaper, Folketidende, on his contract extension. Which is a professional contract. Does that clear things up?Bocanegra (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rather over expansive WP:NFOOTY states - "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable" - per your own admission the Danish 1st Division has some semi-pro teams, and is thus not a "fully-professional league". Therefore, NFOOTY is not met. Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he has not played in a competitive match between two teams, both from fully-professional leagues). Giant Snowman 09:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no significant coverage to meet GNG. The best I can find is this routine coverage and this non-independent coverage, everything else I can find is a complete passing mention (e.g., game reports). Also doesn't meet NFOOTY because "mostly professional" is not "fully professional". Leviv ich 18:11, 15 March 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 CPU Cache. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 19:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Cache[edit]

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

The article consists entirely of marketing spin that presents a well-known topic in computer architecture and organization (shared caches) that has been around for decades as something novel and unique to Intel processors. 99Electrons (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i don't care so much, if it is deleted or not... the CPU cache article gives surely enough details on "shared caches"... maybe i misrepresented "Smart Cache"? and in fact it is more than just a shared cache? i didnt find any notability criteria for technical things... i mean: even if we describe "Smart Cache" properly it might be still irrelevant... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the white paper cited in the article, "Intel Core microarchitecture shares the Level 2 (L2) cache between the cores." It seems like this is just marketing nonsense for a shared L2 Cache and no real new technology, so this article can be merged with the one on CPU caches. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 12:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CPU cache. I would say redirect but I think the article should have been titled "Smart cache" originally – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to CPU cache. The merge proposal was in place before deletion nomination. There was no need to get AfD involved. A WP:TROUT for the nom. ~Kvng (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CPU cache. As per above. On the bright side, the existing merge proposal is supplanted by this discussion, at least the nominating contributor accelerated the process. Unoc (talk) 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things that can be accelerated by threatening to delete but that's not any way to live on an WP:VOLUNTEER project. See also WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 17 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DWWR 15[edit]

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

An unnamed, unpreserved locomotive? Included in a few highly specialized books, but lacking actual notability it seems. Infobox is about the general type, article is about an individual locomotive with different specifications, making this rather confusing or unfocused as well. Fram (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment: Not just one locomotive but a set of several locomotives notable in its day. Once notability is gained always maintained. Due to categorization it is generally not possible to merge this more than I have at present. Still ... we need to see what the community says.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to show that they were notable in its day. Providing independent sources from its day discussing the DWWR 15. That it existed doesn't make it notable, there have been thousands of locomotives, most of them not remarked upon anywhere but some completist books listing all locomotives. And DWWR 15 is the number for one locomotive, right, not a class? The class doesn't seem to have a name though? Fram (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this era some companies did not formally talk in terms of a class and some were only beginning to think of standardization and classes. This company did not seem to be one of them. The article name could be challenged but would need to go to WikiProject Trains for advice.
    - One would expect that for a notable group of locomotives, there would be some standard name to refer to them in reliable sources... Fram (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Concern about application of WP:BEFORE (C) particular C.2. Obviously WP:CSD A7 not applicable here as a product though that to a degree is a loophole.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You have (at least) a week to improve the article or give evidence here of the notability of the subject. But forgive me for not taking your WP:BEFORE concerns too seriously if you have the time to edit Hamburger button instead. You are free to edit whatever you like, but then you shouldn't at the same time complain that you need more time (how much?) before deletion may be considered. Fram (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the Hamburger button has touch point with another I have to make RL and other choices. I can also do some things at some locations and on some devices but not on others ... obviously as an admin you can check on that. I have other things I may fix on the way.
DWWR 24 added to this deletion nomination, as it has the exact same problems, with the same book source (not available online), and a total lack of other sources (not even fan fora, personal websites, ...!). This has existed a bit longer, so I guess ythe WP:BEFORE concern doesn't apply here. Fram (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a few more as well, there seems to be a whole series of similar articles. Fram (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated
- DWWR 42
- DWWR 50
- DWWR 55
- DWWR 4
- DWWR 67
- DWWR 13
- DWWR 17
- DWWR 2
- DWWR 11
- DWWR 52
- DSER 20
Comment: Now I am seeing bias against offline books..... and more WP:BEFORE failure. But at least everything is here together. For hamburger I need to think. carefully. thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all): Very concerned if notability is given to preserved locomotive classes and not to other as this presents a very skewed picture. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, notability is not given to preserved classes only, notability is given to all classes which have received significant attention in multiple reliable sources. This happens more often for preserved ones, but destroyed ones can be equally notable. You can compare this to e.g. old houses, where preserved ones are much more likely to be notable, but being preserved is not a requirement, nor is being destroyed in itself a negative point. It is not clear what you actually base your "keep" on, or what the "before" failure is supposed to be. I have searched for sources for all of these, and came up with the same one each time; Clements' "Locomotives of the GSR". And that's it. No other books, no other websites (reliable or not), no news, nothing. Now, more sources may exist, and if so it would be helpful if you presented them. But so far you have asserted that these locomotives were "notable in its day", but you haven't presented a shred of evidence for this. Fram (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To state the obvious the picture of No. 17 with through the wall onto hatch street where the poor drivers arm got amputated is somewhat notable ... I just got a book that fully described incident a couple of days ago (Harcourt Street Line) and am somewhat surprised you did not find that particular one online. As we are talking 1850s-1925 we mostly have offline resources. Generally with locomotive classes I do the infobox and a one or two liner with the references first; then content later. And okay, if after a while there's a lot of stubs we can see if its sensible to merge and how best to do wikidata and categories and redirects and things. Or WikiProject trains loco's could say rubbish ... we don't like what you have done (I think my only concern then would be red-links in Template:Ireland Steam Locomotives are sorted). In general my priorities are railways should not let to over-dominate settlement articles and within railway pictures of traction are not used to over dominate articles on stations and the like. I do look for merges on these where I possibly can. But merging optimizing too early can sometimes leave a nightmare to unpick. In general I believe Ahrons references pretty much every class. Obviously IRRS would be helpful but only a proportion are online. When the Fry Model Railway opens there may be more sources there. Both 9780904078077 ~~and 9780750988568(Online cost/limited access : appears useful here)~~ might be useful but I haven't seen them. I'll probably tag a second reference on them in a day or two. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are many sources about the Harcourt Street crash, but none of them refer to a "DWWR 17". By following breadcrumbs in sources, it seems that this train was actually known as the "Wicklow"? If there is more about this specific one, because of the crash (great photos, but your image has no source given it seems?), then this one can be taken out of this group nomination. Fram (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh no its facebook! The issue to me will always be the driver was seriously injured. On a quick scan of an offline source I had read it as the amputation was on site. There's actually a couple of bits in the facebook I've not seen elsewhere before.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them, as quickly as possible, obviously. WP:GOODFAITH is required by certain editors. Tony May (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to understand the good faith guideline really. Anyway, any actual policy based reason for your "obvious" keep? Fram (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, thanks for demonstrating another WP:GOODFAITH violation with your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, Mr or Ms Fram, and informing me about my lack of knowledge. I guess it's not an obvious keep because it's not obvious to you, correct? Let's just say obvious to most people and leave it at that. Tony May (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please check WP:AFDEQ and WP:DISCUSSAFD, especially points like " Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself.", "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." Fram (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles appear to all be referenced to multiple independent reliable sources, demonstrating notability. It doesn't surprise me that there are not many online sources for 19th century locomotives from a small railway in a small country - requiring online sources for a topic such of this is the type of systematic bias we should be fighting not encouraging. It might be possible to merge them to an article like Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford rolling stock, but at some point that would need to be split given that it existed for ~80 years and will have operated many different types of vehicle in that period - merging is a discussion that can happen after the AfD is concluded though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm always a bit amazed by the claims that looking for online sources for such older subjects is "systemic bias", since in general there are many more 19th century sources available (readable) online than there are for subjects of around 1950 or so. This is a subject from an English speaking country, a technological subject: usually, there are plenty of sources around for the notable stuff. That these have so few sources is troublesome: either they are usually referred to in a differnt way (and the pages then should be moved or changed to reflect this), or else they are not of interest to, well, anyone apparently. When you look at e.g. Belgian State Railways Type 10, you get quite a few hits from all kinds of sources[35]. For something like the DWWR 42, you get nothing[36]. That they are included in one or two books listing basically everything verifies their existence, but is hardly evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to be clear about something: these are individual, unpreserved locomotives? Preserved individual locomotives are notable. Locomotive classes are notable. You could maybe write an article about the rolling stock of the company, or merge with the builder, but this feels like railfan trivia (admittedly what goes for UK articles wouldn't pass muster in the US). There are plenty of books and articles which list all the locomotives a company has ever owned, but that doesn't go toward notability, otherwise we could have single articles on every locomotive ever built. Mackensen (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mackensen: No. Despite the article names, the articles cover multiple locomotives, e.g. DWWR 42 begins "Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway (DW&WR) 42 to 44 built in 1883 were a set of three 2-4-0T tank locomotives...". The locomotives were not part of a class in the modern sense of the term, as the concept didn't really exist at the time, but the set is roughly analogous to a small class. It would probably make sense to merge the articles but that doesn't require deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - (This was prepared before Thryduulf's response but he beat me ... please read in that content). These are about classes. To quote Clements/McMahon isbn 9781906578268 P.130 (hopefully accurately) "The D&SER (and DW&WR)(sic) had no formal system for identifying classes. In several cases the concept of class was loosely interpreted as there was much diversity within small groups of locomotives of obstensively the same basic type". The infobox fleet numbers (and hopefully how I've written the lead (but evidently not working on feedback) should indicate I'm talking about classes. But there will be Billy-few-mates and Billy-no-mates. Past 1925 In general I've tried to merge classes where practical ... a DWWR 2(2-4-0T) and [DWWR 11]](2-4-2T) might be viable but I've looked at it twice and backed off. The sort of issues we get into with LNWR 4ft 6in Tank Class / DW&WR 59-64 and LNWR Choopers are examples. In a #(pre-existing) article attempting (confusingly) to cover two stations Shankill I think people were finally glad I just split them. I'm just trying to indicate I (in good faith) to merged articles where I think I reasonably comfortable doing so. The overall guideline for the classes here are from Steam locomotives of Ireland#Dublin and South Eastern Railway (1853–1924) and Template:Ireland Steam Locomotives, and I believe I am making good faith decisions merging classes compared to that guideline. Compare with pre March 2019 revisions before my recent edits if necessary. People may also note I am scatteringly developing some article content and I have isbn:978-0715363614 on order though it might be subject to a Are Ye Right There Michael. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not want to repeat the previous comments in detail, but these have been a long accepted type of article, with a reasonable justification. They should not be deleted untess a thorough search through print sources of the period fails to find suitable references, and I suspect such cases will be rare--railroads then were like automobiles now and even what seem to be minor variations attracted a great deal of published discussion. And, after all, NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't doubt that this will end in keep, can you point to even one independent print source from the period about these? It seems extremely unlikely that they " attracted a great deal of published discussion." and that none of these sources has been made available digitally so far. Fram (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All, as per the rationales above, no need to rehash them. I don't always agree with what determines notability criteria (e.g. the NFOOTY criteria where someone simply has to appear in a single game in a fully professional league someplace), but I always try to abide by consensus. In this instance, historical consensus has always been to keep articles like this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. These were large material historical objects. Old things are always thinner on WP:GNG. Yes, they were niche, but WP was built to handle this. There is no PROMO-COI-UDP-POV here that would damage WP; and the articles are well constructed. No harm in chronicling them. Britishfinance (talk) 14:41, 19 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Glove[edit]

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

Created by a sock of Boskit190 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) prior to B's block (so not G5 eligible). Already tagged as COI & paid. It seems spammy to me. At the very least it needs community discussion before more time is wasted on their advert. Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company does not have significant coverage in reliable sources which clearly fails WP:GNG and as suggested by Cabayi maybe a paid article. AmericanAgent (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the company has received coverage in secondary sources, however, much of that is in local papers about their commendable yet not notable philanthropy. Better sourcing is needed to demonstrate the company has received the depth of coverage required for corporations to be considered notable. Here is an analysis of the sources. See my comment below for a source assessment. SITH (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.businessinfocusmagazine.com/2014/10/rooted-in-family-sowing-success/	? There is no apparent affiliation but the use of words such as "renowned" gives me pause, especially in a small publication.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	It's the main topic of coverage.	? Unknown
https://www.thecentralvoice.ca/News/Local/2015-05-14/article-4146430/Equipment-adds-efficiency,-jobs/1	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
https://www.sisense.com/case-studies/superior-glove/	Affiliated, the comapny uses Sisense's software.	Promoting their software.	It does cover the company in reasonable detail.	✘ No
http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=972969	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
http://www.financialpost.com/executive/best-managed/winners/detail.html?id=47	Appears unaffiliated.	Assuming it's Financial Post, then sure.	Covers the company winning a management award.	✔ Yes
https://www.ishn.com/articles/98222-superior-glove-requalies-as-one-of-canadas-best-managed-companies	? Unfamiliar with publication, use of promotional language and excessive linkspam gives me pause on affirmative judgement, could be sponsored content.	Unfamiliar with publication, however it is clearly esoteric and concerns about independence lead me to doubt its reliability.	Covers the company winning an award.	✘ No
https://www.superiorglove.com/blog/a-customer-testimonial-from-nasa	Self-published.	For testimonials, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
https://www2.deloitte.com/ca/en/pages/canadas-best-managed-companies/articles/gold-standard-winners-2018.html	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
http://www.georgetownon.ca/index.php/news-in-georgetown/496-superior-glove-splash-pad-opening	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/2978725-superior-glove-donates-75-000-for-acton-splash-pad/	Appears unaffiliated.	Looks like a standard local newspaper.	~ It's about the company donating money to something, it doesn't cover the company or its operations in any great detail.	~ Partial
http://images.ourontario.ca/Partners/HHPL/IFP001709287pf_0036.pdf	? Publication unidentifiable due to crop.	? Publication unidentifiable due to crop.	~ Ditto.	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Sources 1 and 6 are of questionable independence. Much of the description of the company in these two sources is closely paraphrased from the company's website which gives me reason to suspect they could be instances of sponsored content. Sources 10 and 11 cover the company's actions but on a restricted, local level, and unfortunately, being nice to your community doesn't automatically make you notable. Source 5 is the only one which meets the golden rule and alone, per the requirement for multiple sources, is insufficient to establish corporate notability.

This, in conjunction with the clear conflict of interest issues, leads me to believe the article, in its current state, should be deleted. SITH (talk) 11:18, 12 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Kamino[edit]

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

Advertorially-tinged WP:BLP of an actress, with no properly sourced notability claim per WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actress is not just the ability to list a bunch of roles that she's played, it's the ability to show media coverage about her work as an actress. But the references here are 4/5 primary source profiles which cannot support notability at all, such as her self-created profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with and her own self-published website about herself, and the one that isn't a primary source is a purely routine directory entry. None of these are sources that demonstrate the notability of an actress, and nothing stated in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with significantly improved sources Rfairwea (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, you updated with mostly more sources that aren't helping. An actress's notability is not bolstered just because her name appears in her films' or TV shows' cast lists, for example — that kind of source assists only if her performance is singled out for analysis within the body text of a film or TV review, which neither the Carter nor Rashomon citations do at all. And almost everything else you've added is still primary sourcing, such as a press release from the show's own producers, that still aren't helping. The only new source you've added that is actually starting to get us anywhere is the Now article, and that just gets us off the starting blocks but not all the way to the finish line all by itself as the only substantive and reliable source in play. Bearcat (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search returned many trivial mentions, and one sketchy listing of Canadian actors. I could not find anything in-dpeth in Gnews, GBooks or general web search. Might be notable if someone can make an argument based on N:ACTOR, but GNG-wise it's a fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:34, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on reconsideration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)~~Delete~~ Fails WP:ACTOR. (feel free to ping me to reconsider is someone finds WP:SIGCOV. the best I could find was (Kamino charts Naomi's Road to family past: [AM Edition] Mira Friedlander SPECIAL TO THE STAR. Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]09 Apr 1992: H7. ), and it's not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bearcat, what WP:NACTOR ACTUALLY SAYS is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Your version is completely made-up, as far as I can see. And E.M.Gregory, did you ever look where WP:ACTOR goes? Regulars on autopilot I fear. With a distinctive name she seemed to get c. 12 views a day before nomination, which suggests notability. Why is this on artists, academics & authors sort lists though? Seems silly. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't make shit up. Every single actor who exists has always had roles, because having roles is the job description for an actor, and "significant" is not actually defined at all: does a person have to be the star of the film or TV show to have a "significant" role, or is role "significant" as soon as it actually has spoken lines and isn't just background extra work? This tug of war plays out all the time in actor AFDs: actors always want their PR agents to get them into Wikipedia, so they take the most generous possible definition of "significant", while we apply stricter standards — but we haven't objectively quantified either (a) where the specific line between a role that passes NACTOR and a role that doesn't pass NACTOR actually is, or (b) whether any of the roles Brenda Kamino has had actually get over it or not.
So cursory verification that roles have happened (via IMDb, or the self-published primary source websites of the TV shows or films or plays she was in, or glancing namechecks of her existence in cast lists) is not how you actually get an actor over that criterion: even when you're shooting for "notable because she's had roles", the actual notability test is still the depth of media coverage the person received for having roles, and not just the list of roles in and of itself. Reliable sources are who has to tell us that (a) the role was significant enough to count toward passing NACTOR, and (b) the person has received enough attention for the roles to clear WP:GNG. Actors who don't have adequate media coverage are not handed a free pass over NACTOR just because the article lists roles: the notability test is the degree to which the having of roles has or has not made the actor a subject of media attention. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And where is any of that in WP:NACTOR? If you don't like the policy, you should argue for change, not just ignore it. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "ignoring" a damn thing. SNGs don't have to specifically point out that passing the criterion is a matter of reliably sourcing that the criterion has been passed and not just asserting it, because it's a core principle of Wikipedia that every notability criterion always works that way by definition. There is no notability criterion that ever makes a person so crucially important for us to cover that they're exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because the article asserts passage of a notability criterion — people can and do lie about notability criteria that article subjects don't really pass in reality, or advertorialize article subjects into sounding more notable than they really are, or even try to create articles about total hoaxes that never actually existed, all the time, so passage of any notability criterion always has less to do with what the article says and more to do with how well the article references what it says, and there are no exceptions. Individual notability criteria don't have to redundantly restate what's already a core principle of how all of our notability criteria work in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR #C1. The earliest stage appearance I can find was a significant role in a play that reportedly had a record-breaking success in Toronto in 1977, and toured Canada over 2 years, and she has had other significant roles in notable plays/films/tv series over the 40 years since then. I have started editing the text for a more encyclopaedic tone, and adding more references. (As other editors have pointed out, WP:NACTOR #C1 states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It does not say "and has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", as WP:CREATIVE does.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: GNG supersedes all SNGs except NACADEMIC including NACTOR. If she fails GNG but passes NACTOR, it should technically be a delete. If she passes GNG but not NACTOR, it should be a keep. If she fails both, it should be a delete. If she passes both, it should be a keep. SITH (talk) 10:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why do we have WP:SNGs? If every subject has to pass WP:GNG, there is no need for any other guidelines. If subjects pass WP:SNGs, as verifiable in reliable independent sources, then although there may not be evidence of the significant coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG, they should be kept. We do not have access to all reliable, independent sources ever published or broadcast, so the WP:SNGs provide a basis for deciding which subjects in particular fields are considered notable, and which aren't. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is incorrect. The very first part of WP:N clearly says that GNG/SNG is an either/or situation: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Claiming that an article has to meet both SNG and GNG or be deleted is contrary to long-established consensus guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with RebeccaGreen and Bakazaka, SITH is mistaken.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting because my comment above was terse. What I saw, and continue to see, is an actor who has been a presence in the Ontario theater scene for decades Performing the Intercultural City, By Ric Knowles, University of Michigan Press, 2017, p 178, an enduring presence and career that is significant by our standards. And, as User:RebeccaGreen has said, passes WP:NACTOR #C1 with roles discussed in WP:RS (reviews of her roles in various plays). E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NACTOR which requires ' significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions' and not, as the OP falsely claims, significant press coverage of those roles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Intercity (Deutsche Bahn)#Coaching stock. Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DB Bpmbdzf[edit]

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

No evidence of notability in the article or online. It exists, but doesn't get significant attention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But its a railway carriage being utilised by one of the largest transport companies in the world. Theres plenty of notability of it online such as a Piko model and a DLC for a Train Simulator including the carriage. Ive cited a reference and I will gather more as i come across them. Much appreciated S&N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicandknuckles (talk • contribs) 13:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to control car, as it is the page doesn't state if its just the one car beng described or if its a family of cars... I will also say a German Wiki user may wish to look to see if there is an equivalent page that is suitable for inclusion. Nightfury 11:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Intercity_(Deutsche_Bahn)#Coaching_stock. The Bpmbdzf gets mentions in [Jahrbuch des Bahnwesens (Band 49)] and [Lok-Magazin], but the snippet previews make me think that it isn't significant/in-depth coverage. The Bpmbdzf article right now is only sourced to wagonweb.cz, which doesn't looks like a WP:RS to me, so i'd oppose merging. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 'Bpmbdzf' appears in three articles in German WP. One is unlinked; the other two are piped to de:UIC-Z-Wagen (DR)#Umbau zu IR- und IC-Wagen (no corresponding article in English WP). Narky Blert (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricio Sturlese[edit]

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

Seems everything is outdated. Official site seems dead as of now, and Random House link refers to an Archive.org link. PabloMartinez (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The English Wikipedia article may be outdated, but the Spanish Wikipedia article is longer and includes information about books he published in 2012 and 2019, and would be a good start for updating the English article. The German Wikipedia article refers to an article about him, Manuel Castillo: 'Patricio Sturlese y la novela historica.' In: Revista Casa de las Américas, Nr. 46 (2007/08), which looks like a very useful reference. I'm sure more could be found - an author whose books have been published in (at least) 4 languages is highly likely to have enough reviews to meet WP:NAUTHOR#C3. Checking those articles would be a basic step in WP:BEFORE, as would doing a Google search - a quick look shows results in the media of many countries, including Spain, Paraguay, Argentina, Mexico, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The article should be expanded using material from other Wikipedias, as RebeccaGreen mentioned. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:24, 12 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic SSL[edit]

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

Appears to fail GNG. I've not been able to find any third party sources describing this technique. Search turns up various things describing anything from serving SSL certificates for multiple domains in one web app to the SSL protocol used in OpenVPN, but nothing on this other than their own website and Facebook page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTPROMOTION. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 01:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renominating in one or two months if substantial sources are not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Center of FAR[edit]

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

Seems outdated. Website not working. No references. PabloMartinez (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I'm understanding WP:BEFORE, point C1 follows. The references don't look to be cited probably (they're external links currently). It looks like ASFAR (football) has the same issue. – The Grid (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:23, 12 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olegoethe[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:notability guidelines. No WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Sources given are not significant coverage about him and google searches not finding anything more significant. noq (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of being noteworthy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.236.29 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:23, 12 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Garden[edit]

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

This Article has nothing but a promotion of a place or playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamzine13 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, meets WP:GNG with reasonable coverage from secondary WP:RS. Flapjacktastic (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a lot of reliable sources (WP:RS) can be found about it. There's even a postcard of the area on Florida Memory. – The Grid (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no general notability for this place. Trillfendi (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; somewhat confused by the nominator's position to delete, but the article is generally covered well be reliable sources. Adog (Talk・Cont) 17:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is now blocked indef as a sockpuppet account. Incoherent nomination is one of a string of similarly bad AFD nominations. Flapjacktastic (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying, it seemed uncanny. Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources already present in the article such as the Florida Times and others so passes the requirements of WP:GNG and deserves to be included, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Doncram (talk) 01:28, 19 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malpan Koonammakkal Thoma Kathanar[edit]

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

This is one case where I absolutely cannot tell whether the person is notable or not. Provided sources don't demonstrate so; web searches get hopelessly muddled with flowery church eulogies, and with similarly named 18th century scholars. I can't even determine whether his position in the St. Thomas Christian community is distinguished enough for our purposes. Someone with Malayalam capacities might have more luck here. As it is, I'm not seeing WP:NSCHOLAR satisfied. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It easy to tell that his work has not been cited on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, as substantive coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources is not established. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (me). I missed some viable foreign-language sources during the WP:BEFORE search, and will instead work to improve the article.(non-admin closure)---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srdjan Vukašinović[edit]

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

Other editors have added a whole bunch of tags denoting this article's weaknesses. In an attempt to fix such things I could find no significant and reliable coverage for the musician to confer notability. Despite his talent, the only sources found are self-promotional sites about the projects in which appeared. Also, it appears that he created most of the article himself, probably as an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doomsdayer520 I found these in my search Blic [37], Radio Television of Vojvodina [38], Večernje novosti [39], Danas (newspaper) [40], and all seem more than passing mention. He was also a subject of a programme on public broadcasting channel Radio Television of Serbia [41]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found some coverage of his on Der Landbote [42], few sentences in Aargauer Zeitung [43], this bio in Kammerphilharmonie [44] and this (looks possibly reliable to use on) [45]. Leaning to keep that he passes both WP:GNG and he seems to pass WP:NMUSICIAN Criteria 12 based on the Oko Magazin broadcast segment. While there is not a single English source that can be used, it doesn't matter as WP:GNG says "in any language". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Nominator - I checked some Serbian and German sources via Google Translate and assumed they were additional promo attempts, but perhaps something was lost in translation. If there are any more "Keep" votes I will withdraw the nomination. And while I know that the AfD process is not meant for cleaning up an article, this one needs significant help under any standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it. This article is a pure mess on all counts (not surprising since this seems like a horrible case of a WP:AUTOBIO that is even openly done). I would not be opposed to deleting and WP:TNT-ing the article from scratch, but I have rarely seen that happening even for the articles in worse situations than this because like you said WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 12 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmie[edit]

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

Aside from a LifeHacker page, I can't find much in-depth significant coverage that passes WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT. SITH (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not exactly hogging the headlines - there's plenty of instances of the same useless (for notability purposes) bare-bones note around; but also this [46], which is somewhat more expansive. Might just squeeze through. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a thing, but not every thing is notable. Bearian (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete https://www.linux.com/news/gimmie-new-panel-prototype exists like Eastmain said, but that is not enough to pass WP:GNG which requires multiple significant reliable secondary coverage, something Lifehacker one is not (2-3 sentences is not WP:SIGCOV). Nothing to find except the press releases. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 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. WP:SNOW. I'd say that the previous close was partially justified by WP:NOTBURO. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 21:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of statements by Donald Trump[edit]

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

This is an WP:ATTACK page. An attack page is "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject" No comparable page exists not only for any other president, but any other person in history. The page implies that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history and contains exclusively negative information about him. Rusf10 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – very relevant and notable topic. Just because it contains information you don't like doesn't mean it meets the attack page criteria. Bradv🍁 06:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename Lack of veracity of claims made by Donald Trump or the more succinct Donald Trump's lies (that already exists as a redirect to this article?). PolitiFact has a list of All False statements involving Donald Trump. The Toronto Star has something similar,[47] while the Washington Post restricted itself to just the first 100 days of his administration.[48] No other president or anybody else I can think of off the top of my head has had such a tenuous connection to the truth in their public utterances. So yes, he's at the very least in the running for biggest (most prolific and most incompetently transparent) liar in history. The guy lights his own pants on fire with a flamethrower daily and repeatedly. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG by a mile. Naming discussion can be had on the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man arguement. I never raised a notability issue, it's an attack page.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. This is a page about a notable topic which might reflect negatively upon its subject but does not serve no purpose but to do so. Donald Trump has cultivated a political style of using misinformation excessively to the point that reliable sources have focused on the uniqueness of this approach. Having an article describing this style of politics is not an attack on the person any more than for example McCarthyism is an attack page against Sen. McCarthy. Regards So Why 19:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The (lack of) veracity of statements by Donald Trump is a notable topic in itself with many reliable sources noting that the amount of untruthful statements are unparalleled. If reliable sources treat the very fact that a president habitually makes false statements as a notable topic itself (and not just as something all politicians do), similar articles can be created for these presidents. If the problem is the name, it can be discussed on the talk page. But if your only argument is no other such page exists, it's a weak one. After all, just because something is unique does not mean it's not a notable topic. Regards So Why 08:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This ought to be a snow keep, but we'll see. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trump's habitual lying is extensively covered in sources around the world. More than 9,000 have been document just during his presidency[49]. The article is not an attack page. The reason "no comparable page exists not only for any other president" is that no other president has lied so often and so clumsily. - Mr X 🖋 10:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems an awful lot like a WP:POVFORK. For example, Tony Schwartz is a journalist who ghostwrote Trump: The Art of the Deal.^[1]^[2] In July 2016, Schwartz was interviewed by Jane Mayer for two articles in The New Yorker.^[3]^[1] In them he described Trump, who was running for president at the time, highly unfavorably, and described how he came to regret writing The Art of the Deal.^[3]^[1]^[4] Is it really necessary to tell us how Shwartz feels about Trump? This quote is half the section labeled In The Art of the Deal. If the results are to be keep, I highly suggest we place some sort of cleanup tag on it. It's sourced, yes, but the tone needs work. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 11:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Mayer, Jane (July 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
^ Barrett, Wayne. The Greatest Show on Earth (First Regan Arts. paperback edition, August 2016 ed.). New York, N.Y.: Regan Arts. p. 33. ISBN 978-1682450-79-6. (Republication of Trump: The Deals and the Downfall (Harper Collins, 1992, ISBN 0-06-016704-1))
^ ^a ^b Mayer, Jane (July 20, 2016). "Donald Trump Threatens the Ghostwriter of "The Art of the Deal"". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
^ "'Art Of The Deal' Ghostwriter On Why Trump Should Not Be President". NPR. July 21, 2016. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

Keep. Drowning in WP:GNG refs. Perfect topic to showcase how WP:PAG produces encyclopedic content in contested areas. Any issues regarding content (e.g. POV), can be solved within the article/talk page. Britishfinance (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: I have reverted an inappropriate non-admin "speedy keep" closure by an involved editor, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 12. This does not prevent an admin from re-closing this discussion as "speedy keep" if they believe this is warranted; I take no position on this issue. Sandstein 17:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly, describing reality an attack page does not make. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~LOL! I hate to mention the editor, and not just the content, but we're looking at a case of severe incompetence on display, or just plain POV deletionism.~~ This is a frivolous AfD. We document what RS say here, and since they document (not just "allege) "that Donald Trump is the biggest liar in history" (Rusf10), we are supposed to document what they say. If Rusf10 doesn't get that, they should be topic banned from American politics, because they consistently take the side opposite RS on all things Trump. That's disruptive and incompetent. Check their history and you'll see. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Refactored to reduce the heat. The personal mention wasn't really necessary here. Sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 19:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is no denying the allegations, a portion of which may well be on target. I'm of the mind there may be some ambiguity in what opinion determines to be a lie vs exaggeration vs his repeating misinformation, but that's a job for editors at the article to work out by following BLP, NOR, NPOV and V. ^Atsme 📣 📧 18:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plainly a notable topic with ample available references. It might not always be clear whether a particular untruth is a deliberate lie, a falsehood stated in ignorance, etc., but that's a matter where we summarize the reliable sources through normal day-to-day editing. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Here is the discussion that the article was spawned from. Do you see any evidence that the page was created to attack anyone or for any other inappropriate reason? Neither do I. R2 (bleep) 19:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which also means the WP:NEGATIVESPIN part of ATTACK would apply anyway. Thanks for the link. Regards So Why 19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. R2 (bleep) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate topic that has been covered by numerous reliable sources. There's no reason to delete it. This seems like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 12 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air India 101[edit]

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

Just a single event where the ILS and some non-mechanical systems on the plane weren't working. The pilot obviously talented,can see and it was a major airport on a semi cloudy day,he can land with little difficulty. Based on the description, and the coverage of the event, doesn't seem that significant to have its own article. A mention in the plane model(777)'s incidents section might be enough Daiyusha (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The plane landed safely and there were no injuries. Johndavies837 (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this fails the criteria contained in WP:EVENT. If required, the text contained in the article may be salvaged and merged with List of accidents and incidents at John F. Kennedy International Airport and/or Newark Liberty International Airport#Accidents and incidents. It appears that the fact that there were no casualties also weighs in heavily on the issue of notability, as while the incident did receive some in-depth coverage in the mainstream media in India at the time of the incident,^{[50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]} the subsequent lack of sustained national and international coverage (WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE) demonstrates that the event did not have a WP:LASTING impact, which is a condition precedent to demonstrate notability for events. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:57, 17 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tial Thang[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Has only one fight with ONE FC which is not top tier promoter. Not notable - fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. He has only 1 fight and that was not for a top tier promotion. Coverage is just routine. Papaursa (talk) 23:43, 18 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arman Tsarukyan[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Not notable, fighter has not fought in top tier promotion - Fails WP:NMMA and WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no top tier fights and appears to lack significant independent coverage. Coverage is either routine and/or not independent. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 18 March 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariane Lipski[edit]

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

Not notable mma fighter - fail WP:NMMA, only 1 fight in top tier promotion and lost the fight. WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA since she lost her only top tier fight. She also fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent coverage. Article was created WP:TOOSOON but can be recreated when/if she has three top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As this article is basically identical to the previously-deleted one, this could also have been a G4. Randykitty (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display (Switzerland)[edit]

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

Sources provided are not independent with the exception of a Luzerner Zeitung (local newspaper) piece which doesn't mention the subject. Half of the citation links are 404s. Could not find anything better online, or on the German article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article was (re)created by a newby editor who probably doesn't know the ins-and-outs yet and who has neglected to add refs; however the subject lacks significant coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F/A-18 Hornet Solo Display. YSSYguy (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:19, 12 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cravath System[edit]

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

This page has existed for about 10 years, but I think it is an ad. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. I am not sure. Cravath Swaine is in fact one of the very most prestigious law firms in the world, and their internal history sourcing is far more signficant than other sources within other organizations. For an example about sourcing in management consulting and accountings, somewhat related fields also with high-powered firms based in NYC and Chicago, I think the internal original history stories of McKinsey & Co. and about Arthur Andersen are pretty darn reliable too. Yes, the memoires of firm founders and official history books of various salient historic professional firms are obviously affiliated with the subjects, are not very independent. But Cravath's formula for success may well have been very significant and original (I don't really know for sure) and it may have been copied by many other law firms, and it may be historically important in law firm management. Is there an article on law firm management, by the way? It could perhaps be merged to such, or revised/expanded to cover the broader topic. Like there is a current AFD going on now about restaurant management, an obviously encyclopdic topic which will end in "Keep" result. --Doncram (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Revised. 04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This source used in the article, though labelled as a "blog" is pretty darn scholarly like and seems independent. I am inclined to believe that the "Cravath system" is a thing, and an important thing worth covering in our encyclopedia. Sure, the article could be improved and/or tagged for improvement in some ways, but ~~wp:AFDISNOTFORIMPROVEMENT (?) or whatever~~wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cravath, Swaine & Moore is a working link to the article on the law firm. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, i have just redirected former redlink "Cravath Swaine" to that. --Doncram (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I explained my reasons for creating the article from red links on the talk page. A significant number of legal firms and consulting companies adopted this system. Tangurena (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that Talk page discussion is intelligent and includes significant references, including

How the "Cravath System" Created the Bi-Modal Distribution
The Cravath System and the Demise of Large Firm Business as We Know It

There is discussion there that at one point in time, at least, the article "mixes reporting on the original Cravath System and describing subsequent developments at Cravath and other firms. This is confusing." Which was or is to be addressed by editing, not AFD. And also suggestion that "up or out" deserves its own article, which is also not part of AFD.

I voted "Keep" above and feel more sure now that should be the correct outcome here. --Doncram (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was a popular management system. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 17 March 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. bd2412 T 12:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WMWC (college radio)[edit]

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

Unlicensed station which fails WP:BROADCAST. Station is not covered in reliable sources to the level necessary for subject to pass WP:GNG. Tdl1060 (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is either a Part 15 station or an internet-only stream, I can't tell which — but neither of those types of radio services get an automatic free pass over WP:BCAST just for existing, and are permitted Wikipedia articles only if they can show enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. Nothing like that is in evidence here, however: there's not a single thing here that isn't a directly affiliated primary source, and even the writing tone is trending in an advertorialized direction. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlicensed and/or online-only stations don't get any presumption of notability, and the requisite sources to meet the general notability guideline don't seem to be out there. (And this article has been around since 2006…) Worth noting too, that the media notability supplement also has a separate section for student media (which "WMWC" definitely falls under), which says that A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves. So a redirect to University of Mary Washington shouldn't be ruled out either. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:43, 17 March 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. bd2412 T 12:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knife Sotelo[edit]

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

I've been removing unsourced material from this article for a while (original state: [56]), and I've come to realize that, despite the many claims to notability in the article, this person is likely not notable as a musician, politician, or religious figure.

The article claimed that he founded the first satanic branch of the Universal Life Church, the Satanic Chapel; the chapel's website [57] names someone else as founder, and claims inspiration from but not affiliation with the ULC. The article claimed that the single "I Wish You Would" "gained rotation on radio stations throughout the United States" and the album Magick without Words sold 2 million copies in 2014; I was unable to verify his chart statistics, but I noticed that his youtube channel shows only 2 videos with >1k views; his most recent release has received 9 total views in the space of a month. The article claimed that he has taught martial arts, participated in guerilla street art, and sold marijuana-flavoured beer: these seem to be true, but hardly claims to genuine notability. The article used to contain lots of unsourced material about his religious affiliations and personal views, including uncited direct quotes, ostensibly from Sotelo himself. (This was one of the reasons why I tagged the article as an autobiography).

The article called Sotelo a "perennial candidate"; he apparently did run for Congress in California once, but attracted minimal media attention; all of the article's sources for that are Sotelo's own press releases and various anonymous user-submitted content. The article claimed both that "Sotelo was the subject of numerous articles in news media throughout the world, including popular magazines such as The San Francisco Examiner, Music Connection, and Teen Ink, and men's magazines" and that "Sotelo was a frequent contributor to the teen literary magazine Teen Ink": I would bet money that most of the content-farm profiles of Sotelo I've come across were written by the man himself. Other than that, the sources are a few interview transcripts, links to Sotelo's posts on Facebook and Tumblr, and links to buy his self-published books and stream his music. gnu 57 03:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator has done good work in trying to track down confirmation of this article's many attempts to describe Mr. Knife as notable. He has carved a unique niche as a satanic Hispanic rapper author, and got a little media notice for that (e.g. [58], [59]), but that is not quite enough for notability on his own terms. The article's statements on his music/book sales and political accomplishments are exaggerated at best and generally unsupported. Overall the article gives the vibe of an attempted promotion for this jack-of-many-trades who hasn't hit paydirt on any of them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ARTN. --Hiwilms (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that the topic is of valid encyclopedic interest, but the problem is with the content and the name. Those issues are better left to talk page discussion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Armenia[edit]

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

Article is full of copyright violations (WP:G12) and covers the same subject as Zakarid Armenia (WP:A10). This article is also full of original research, unsourced claims, and many citations that do not verify much of what they are claimed to. The article is filled with text taken from Zakarid Armenia, Kingdom of Georgia, Orbelian Dynasty, and other articles. Among this are lots of bold unsourced claims, like Georgian being the official language and Georgian Orthodoxy the official religion.

This article had actually started out as the redirect Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia. Georgiano tried to move Zakarid Armenia to that title, but couldn't get a consensus. So now he created a duplicate article of the same topic. Both "Georgian Armenia" and "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia" are neologisms (WP:NEO) that do not have any sources verifying these titles, so please do not leave a redirect and delete both of these two pages. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ----Երևանցի ^talk 09:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading the articles it seems that these pertain to two different topics. Georgian Armenia pertains to the historical kingdom of Georgia's rule over a historical region of Armenia. It includes information about the various Georgian rulers' administrative policies and attitudes towards Armenia prior to its assimilation. Zakarid Armenia however "is a name for various Armenian princedoms" ruled by the Mkhargrdzeli dynasty. No information is given about the policies of early Georgian figures such as George IV, David the Builder, Demetrius I, etc. and encompasses a much broader time period, including vassalization under the Mongols. It seems to me that, if some of the information from Georgian Armenia were integrated to Zakarid Armenia (such as the section "Armenia within the Kingdom of Eastern Georgia") while information irrelevant to Armenia was removed (i.e. references to only Georgia after Georgian rule had already ended), and the timeframe of actual Georgian rule was made clear (1100s to 1236), these articles could work well together. As for the claim that Georgian Armenia is ~~a neologism~~ inapt, I would have to agree with this since the only references that use this term are very dated. I'd support a move to "Georgian rule in Armenia" or something more suitable.

I'm not entirely certain of the complexities of this particular nationalistic battleground so if it's apparent that I made errors in trying to understand this I'll change my vote accordingly. Also, I sampled large amounts of the text and didn't find any copyright violation. Can you be specific? Elspamo4 (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elspamo4: The whole concept of a "Georgian Armenia" or "Georgian rule in Armenia" is highly debatable, and that article was given a large biased and unsourced rewrite by Georgiano recently. He also used many citations that didn't verify what he claimed them to. I'm restoring the article to how it was.

The degree of Armenian dependence on Georgia during this period is still the subject of considerable controversy. The numerous Zak'arid inscriptions leave no doubt that they considered themselves Armenians, and they often acted independently. - Joseph Strayer (Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Vol. 1, page 485)

In one inscription on the palace church on the citadel of Ani, the brothers' principal city and the former capital of Armenia, they refer to themselves as 'the kings of Ani', suggesting loftier ambitions, independent of Georgia ... The conflicting claims of the brothers, as vassals in Georgia but as independent kings in their own lands, are reflected in the modern disagreement about the family's name: Mqargrdzeli in medieval Georgian sources, Zakarian in modern Armenian histories. No compromise seems possible in the modern histories of Georgia and Armenia. - Antony Eastmond (Tamta's World, pages 26-27)

Here are some copyright violations:

(identical text) If the first rebellion in the Caucasus was against the repression of the Mongols, the second can be considered an internal clash between lords who were under the Georgian crown and those princes who were under Mongol patronage. Mongols preferred to have their own suzerainty over the Armenians and to see the Armenian lords attached to them rather than to the Georgian court, ensuring that the Georgio-Armenian lords were more disunited[60]

(identical text) Some merchants, such as Tigran Honents, became very rich, as demonstrated by his lavish church on the eastern flank of Ani[61]

(identical text) If those Armenians adhered to the Georgian orientation, their compatriots and entourage immediately called them “Ivers” (i.e. Georgians)[62]

The addition of the title indicates the conquest of the Kingdom of Lori in 1118, whose kings were called "mephe somekhta" in Georgian, and not of the Kingdom of Ani, whose kings bore the title of "Shahanshah". (article)
The addition of the title of "King of the Armenians" ("mepe somekhta") indicates the conquest of the kingdom of Tashir - Dzorageti, whose kings were called "mepe somekhta" in Georgian, and not of the Ani - kingdom of the Armenian Bagratids, who bore the title of "Shahansha".[63]

Although the David IV wrested Ani – the political and religious capital of Armenia – from the “infidel” Shaddadids, he did not regard them as the legitimate rulers, and, since there were no representatives of the Armenian Bagratids, he considered that his step was legally justified. (article)
Although the Georgian king wrested the Shirak-kingdom from the Shaddadids, he did not regard the latter the legitimate rulers, and, since there were no representatives of the Armenian Bagratids, he considered that his step was legally justified.[64]

While Armenia suffered from the Seljuk rule, the neighboring Kingdom of Georgia ("Kingdom of Abkhazians and Iberians"), began to increase their economic, political, and military power. The state was ruled by the branch of Bagratid family who wanted to enlarge their political and economic influence in Caucasus region by establishing a new state system which would also include the former Bagratid holdings in Armenia. Georgian authorities found an ally, the Armenian nobles that left Armenia for Georgia.[2] Armenians wanted to liberate their homeland, and considered Georgia, another Christian nation, to be their “natural” ally (article, just removed part about Georgia being a Seljuk vassal)
While Armenia was suffering from the Seljuk rule, the neighboring Georgia, which was a vassal of the Seljuk Sultanate, began to increase their economic, political, and military power. The state was ruled by a branch of the Bagratid family who wanted to enlarge their political and economic influence in the region by establishing a new state system which would include the former Bagratid holdings in Armenia. Georgian authorities found an ally, the Armenian nobles that left Armenia for Georgia. These nobles had some military power and had reached state positions in Georgia. They wanted to liberate their homeland, and considered Georgia, another Christian nation, to be their “natural” ally[65]

While Armenian Christians welcomed liberation from Muslim rule, many nobles, feared losing their autonomy and sought better terms as Muslim vassals (article)
While Armenian Christians welcomed liberation from Muslim rule, many nobles, Armenian and Georgian, feared losing their autonomy and sought better terms as Muslim vassals[66] Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EtienneDolet: I see that there's much dispute over the exact nature of Georgian jurisdiction over Armenia. Judging from your sources it looks like it wouldn't be exactly accurate to call it "Georgian rule". Though it does seem, that while semi-autonomous, it was still considered a fiefdom of the Kingdom of Georgia (from your Tamta's World source). And we do have other sources suggesting that it was considered as falling under the suzerainty of the Kingdom of Georgia: The Art of Armenia - Christina Maranci and The Caucasian Knot: The History & Geopolitics of Nagorno-Karabagh - Levon Chorbajian, Patrick Donabédian & Claude Mutafian; all authors are experts on Armenian history. Even though their suzerainty may have just been in title, it still qualifies as suzerainty. I would agree with User:Kober that the article should be moved to Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia, and also think that there should be a section explaining the exact nature of Georgian suzerainty, i.e. briefly detailing the Mkhargrdzeli dynasty's history, their semi-autonomous status under the Georgian court, the lack of consensus on how much influence Georgia had on Armenia, etc. (I could possibly write this section in due course with the sources we have on this page alone).

Re the copyright violations: thanks for the clarification, the three book quotes are clearly copyvio, I rewrote the last violation you mentioned, I'll try to find the time to write the other two. As for the other violations you note, I'm not sure if the sources ripped off our content, or if we ripped off theirs, since it would be rare to find that quality of writing on random blogposts, and also since the text cites legitimate-looking books, although I'm unable to verify since there's no preview on Google books. Maybe someone more experienced can speak on this. Elspamo4 (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some cleanup and better wording in some sentences. Armenia was under Georgia for centuries and that is not disputed anywhere. What we need is more expansion of the article from Georgian and Armenian sources as well. Also I'd call upon User:Kober and User:LouisAragon to have their say here as well. They both work majorly on Georgia's articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B42B:9A5E:AC81:4EA5:32A2:63E8 (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename into "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia". The nominator's rationale regarding neologisms is flawed. "Georgian Armenia" is not a neologism; it is an actually an archaism used in the early modern historiography to refer to a specific frontier district, but the concept is not per se related to the medieval fiefdom(s) covered in the article in question. As for "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia", it is not a neologism because it is not, technically speaking, a term; it is a descriptive title and we have dozens of similarly titled entries in Wikipedia. --Kober^Talk 17:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purpose -- This is about the medieval Kingdom of Georgia, which was more extensive than the present republic. However that article is much briefer. Much of this article would make a good "main" subarticle to that one. Sorry, I am not qualified to implement this. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia". But a large amount of content within the article needs to be checked/amended/trimmed. For instance, EtienneDolet is right in saying that its packed with copyvios. Furthermore, the articles contains numerous incorrect statements as well (WP:OR / violations of WP:VER). - LouisAragon (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati-Columbus rivalry[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:GNG, essentially a recreation of Hell Is Real which was already deleted. Jay eyem (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the lack of notability and enough content to establish it. I can't compare it with the deleted Hell Is Real, but if they are the same then clear speedy delete --DannyS712 (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Give it the boot. FC Cincinnati has only been around since 2016, 2018 in MLS, so there's hardly been enough time to establish a serious, noteworthy rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article is probably based off this news item that talks about the possibility of a derby once FC Cincinnati debuts in the MLS. As of right now they've had only one match, so it most definitely isn't a derby yet. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Existent articles about team rivalries are usually for those between countries, not cities. Failure to cite reliable, independent sources demonstrating notability. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not providing a judgment, but I have added some context and references. I hope this will be factored into any decision. Radagast (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WXTZ 87.9 Norwich[edit]

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

Not a legally licensed radio station (probably Part 15). Fails to meet WP:NMEDIA, WP:BROADCAST, and WP:GNG. No station outside of KSFH and K200AA can legally broadcast on 87.9 FM without the FCC's permission. The "WXTZ" callsign is currently assigned to WXTZ-LP, a low-power radio station licensed to Yadkinville, North Carolina and not apparently associated with the station in Norwich, Connecticut. Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:45 on March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Defunct Part 15 station that does not meet the requirements for WP:BROADCAST. Article is devoid of sources that support any of the content related to the station itself. The only mention of the station that I could find in a reliable source is an incidental passing mention that does nothing to establish notability.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above; also, it is written in a manner of WP:OR, and seems to partially be a venue for airing a grievance against a website owner.Stereorock (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlicensed Part 15 stations are not handed the same presumption of notability that properly licensed stations get; they can still qualify for articles in the (unlikely but not impossible) event that they receive enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but are not guaranteed an entitlement to have a Wikipedia article in the absence of a GNG pass just because they existed. Just to be clear, I have removed the redundant PROD nomination that got added to this article after this discussion was already underway — it's not that I disagree with its deletion, because I don't, but rather that articles cannot be simultaneously subjected to two different deletion processes. Once AFD has already been initiated, you need to let the AFD play out rather than trying to rush it into a different deletion queue while this discussion is still open. Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination - repeated requests for citations have been ignored, with claims such as "Siting many of the upcoming events related to this station's demise is difficult, because much of it took place on privately owned forum boards related to radio broadcasting that require registration to view and permission to republish or reference in this article." Editor who has claimed to be the owner, is now carrying out a separate discussion at User talk:MrBruce1959. - Arjayay (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no presumed notability for unlicensed stations, Part 15 or no (and a station on 87.9 is not a Part 15 station, as Part 15 radio stations are limited to 88–108 MHz—implemented in such a way that the actual limit is 88.1–107.9 MHz—and in any event 87.9 is considered to be part of TV channel 6, where the FCC traditionally does not allow unlicensed transmissions at all). The sources required to meet the general notability guideline are hard to come by (and the only citations in the article are the Part 15 regulations themselves and an old Facebook copyright page; neither page is about or even mentions "WXTZ" specifically); this article mentions "WXTZ", but that's of no help because it's a passing mention in an article about a different station (and it wouldn't surprise me if this is the same article Tdl1060 found). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes that is the same article that I had found. The only other online mentions of this station that I could find were on forums and wikipedia mirrors, neither of which come close to being a reliable source.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WZKW[edit]

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

Not a legally licensed radio station (probably Part 15). Fails to meet WP:NMEDIA, WP:BROADCAST, and WP:GNG. The "WZKW" callsign is not currently assigned to any radio or television station. Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:41 on March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No real proof station exists. There is no "WZKW" or "WZKW-LP" licensed and FCCdata.org does not yield any results for "DWZKW" or "DWZKW-LP". Claimed ERP exceeds that of a legal Part 15 FM station. It could be a pirate station, but there are no reliable sources that would support notability as a pirate station. The only online mentions of this station are outdated affiliate lists, which could indicate that it once existed, but as a pirate station or Part 15 station, as no such station was ever actually licensed. As such, the station does not meet any of the requirements for WP:BROADCAST.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no presumption of notability for unlicensed stations, and there just isn't much in the way of sources to meet the general notability guideline. (The article claims the station has been around since 2004; while that's a decent run for an unlicensed station, and an established broadcast history is suggested as a path to notability in WP:BCAST, that alone isn't enough, especially without sources) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:31, 17 March 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.

[Mayer_7/25/2016-1] Mayer, Jane (July 25, 2016). "Donald Trump's Ghostwriter Tells All". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

[Barrett_Greatest_show-2] Barrett, Wayne. The Greatest Show on Earth (First Regan Arts. paperback edition, August 2016 ed.). New York, N.Y.: Regan Arts. p. 33. ISBN 978-1682450-79-6. (Republication of Trump: The Deals and the Downfall (Harper Collins, 1992, ISBN 0-06-016704-1))

[Mayer_7/20/2016-3] Mayer, Jane (July 20, 2016). "Donald Trump Threatens the Ghostwriter of "The Art of the Deal"". The New Yorker. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

[NPR_ghost_7/21/2016-4] "'Art Of The Deal' Ghostwriter On Why Trump Should Not Be President". NPR. July 21, 2016. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]