Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 May	5 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The keep votes are generic and not policy based, nor do they add any information that helps establish the notability of the person. The delete votes have provided high detailed reasoning as to why this is either too soon, or never to be, and why this BLP fails to pass the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erika_Alden_DeBenedictis[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a typical graduate student. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC. PulseLabel (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG (I wouldn't even say an actual claim to ACADEMIC is made) - sources either fail independent or Sig Cov Nosebagbear (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She appears to be a grad student at MIT, WP:TOOSOON for notability through WP:PROF. There are some moderately well cited publications by E. DeBenedictis but they are by Erik P. DeBenedictis (with whom she shares a web site). She is also the author of a very recent PNAS paper; this is a significant accomplishment but not by itself enough for notability, especially because there are ten authors and she is in a middle position among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs more details and references.Germcrow (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added some more information and references. Mlvandijk (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:

Not significant coverage – a couple of lines in the context of a naming citation. Adequately covered at 23131 Debenedictis.
Not independent coverage – author is a member of the organisation that sponsored the prize.
Not significant coverage — same as 1.
Unlikely to be significant coverage – I'm not paying US$169 just to verify the citation, but considering it's a IAU reference dictionary it will likely be similar or identical to 1.
Not independent coverage – university website covering its own summer school program.
Not independent coverage – author "was the Academic Director of the program at New Mexico Tech" which DeBenedictis attended and coverage is of events during the program.
Not independent coverage – Intel press release covering science fair it sponsored.
Not significant coverage – barely a sentence about DeBenedictus winning an Intel contest.
Not independent coverage – TED profile.
Possibly unreliable coverage – Scientista seems more of a promotional organisation for female college students than a reliable media organisation.
Not independent coverage – interview.

Best sources not in article:

New York Times op-ed – not significant coverage, similar to 8 (same author).
ZDnet – not significant coverage, barely two sentences.

Overall, any significant information could be easily included in 23131 Debenedictis or Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. – Teratix ₵ 00:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish volleyball transfers 2008–09[edit]

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

I declined a no-reason speedy on this article, but I'm not seeing how this list meets the notability guidelines. A good-faith Google search didn't come up with anything, but sources might be available in Turkish, which I don't read. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a quick Google search for this exact thing and I have hit nothing in terms of these transfers. That and the fact this is the only thing in its type also equates to a deletion Matt294069 (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and no indication of notability. The lack of sources means this is likely to be original research. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two Headed Alligator[edit]

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

This article is, I am afraid, unsalvageable. The entirety of its sources are fabricated, & the entire section about "Bite or Smite" refers to work that allegedly happened a full nine years before the WPA was created. It's a hoax perpetuated by a local artist. Bubbaprog (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated by the nom, the actual supposed "creature" that this article is about was an orchestrated hoax. So, at the very least, the article can not exist in its current form where it falsely describes this as an actual piece of folklore. And, as it was not a particularly notable hoax, I don't really see it passing the WP:GNG in general. There's a handful of articles mentioning it, but none of it goes beyond just run of the mill news of the day. There is nothing to show any real lasting notability of the hoax. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seeing as Atlantic306's arguments have not been contested in detail Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darken (film)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable film. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was surprised, given notable performers, but it doesn't seem to have any reviews from reliable sources. Testing the long list of reviews on ImDB took a while, but no joy there. Thus failure of WP:NFILM. No single obvious redirect target, so delete for now. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Rotten Tomatoes here lists reviews in multiple reliable sources such as Globe and Mail, National Post and Now Toronto so WP:NFILM is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, add it to the article? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am now unbelievably confused - I clicked this link and nothing came up. Nor were helpful reviews coming up in a before check. It's probably me starting into a horror film. In any case, NFILM would indeed seem to be passed Nosebagbear (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This certainly does need improvement, but per Atlantic 306 it definitely has reviews in notable publications. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NFO, not widely distributed or won awards or historically notable or any other criteria - YouTube as a citation, seriously? - Epinoia (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: - we aren't talking about the in article sources. What about the reviews given by Atlantic, which would satisfy criterion 1 Nosebagbear (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Tank Man. Sandstein 18:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt (advertisement)[edit]

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

WP:TOSOON to tell if it is notable. Lopifalko (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:ONEEVENT. China is a dictatorship that bans ads, people, search terms and more all the time. The ad is centered around a notable event, but this article does not inherit that events notability under WP:NOTINHERITED. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tank Man, to improve the Legacy section, as the IP editor below suggested. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Too much Tiananmen information has been deleted already. Furthermore, this incident is a notable part of the history of a set of iconic photographs, not just one more case of an ad being controversial. - phi (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@- phi The IP editor below makes a convincing argument for merging this article to Tank Man to improve the Legacy section. Do you find this solution satisfactory enough to change your vote to merge like I did? Newshunter12 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newshunter12 - I certainly applaud your compromising spirit and came back here to say yes to your suggestion but then read the later keep argument from IP editor 109.&c and would like to take a couple days, first to see if a consensus emerges but also I hope to have lunch with some of the people from the Chinese studies department where I work (since I do not read Chinese myself to see what that encyclopedia article says). I found the point about needing the detailed description of the film compelling and doubt it would fit well under Legacy. However, from my connection the YouTube video ID # UCUBAcGgb4A linked in the footnoted Guardian article is still up (though I found it only thanks to material proposed for deletion). That five-minute version includes much more than the fleeting glimpse of the iconic photograph, from the wolves to the security men in the foreigners' hotel. I have qualms about entrusting the public record of a major censorship incident to a video-sharing site. I can understand how the Leica ad might be such major news in China that it'd be weird for us not to have an article on it. Time will tell, but I can certainly imagine coming around to your merge proposal, too. - phi (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- Okay, @Newshunter12, you have brought me around because when I got a person from Chinese studies to translate the page mentioned by IP editor 109&c it was immediately clear to me that what may be encyclopedic in one language may not be in another (due to embedded cultural references deep in the nature of linguistic truth). Barring further developments for Leica or Saatchi & Saatchi, this incident will not likely warrant a freestanding encyclopedia article. However, the most important takeaway from yesterday's consultee (a young European Chinawatcher, though I'll try to also probe the two divergent views among native speakers in the Mandarin language department) is that the repudiated Leica ad ought to gain mention in English Wikipedia where it is germane to the handling of the historical legacy of 6/4, say a page about that, or, I am told, we are likely to soon have a 30th anniversary page analogous to five years ago's. The point here is that this incident may prove to be the first among several in the runup to 2019-06-04 next month. An additional suggestion was that it would be important for the material merged into Tank Man to include this still. We will have to deliberately consider how things unfold. Though students have made me sensitive to Tiananmen-related information disappearing from the historical record, this is not my field, so I'd be grateful if other editors would also take information suppressed between now and the upcoming May 35th to heart. - phi (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This event is not really notable enough, or significant enough, for an article of its own. However it does give good context to other events, and needs to be on Wikipedia. Would be more appropriate to merge with Tank Man, specifically, to expand and improve the event's mention on the article's Legacy section. It is mentioned there anyway, but a bit more information, and additional sources (only one source on tank man page, 5 sources here) would be good. It could possibly be mentioned (even if only briefly) on other pages as well, such as Internet censorship in China, Censorship in China, 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Merge it with what is already on Tank Man#Legacy, and possibly give it a few mentions on other relevant pages. As Newshunter12 has said, it isn't notable enough to justify an article, but should get a mention.106.68.57.82 (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The length and comprehensiveness of the Chinese Wikipedia article already demonstrated the significance and notability of this event, at least in the context of Chinese society and consequently in Chinese Studies. This advertisement might be the most widely publicised media in recent Chinese society that depicts the Tiananmen protests and in particular the journalistic struggles behind Tankman, given its short film nature (and artistic merit!) and Huawei's very visible advertising campaign since its partnership with Leica. I would imagine many of my generation looking back at this and say, "this is where I felt the influence that Tiananmen had on Western societies, and where I felt the pressure facing foreign journalists operating in a closed China."

I would agree though that this article as it is written is not very helpful to understanding the significance of this event or its full implications. It is now little more than a stub, while the Chinese Wikipedia page has a detailed accounting of the plot and analysis of reactions and repercussions. The Chinese page has more than 30 references, all of which are reportings on this particular video, across a palette of international media. Also note in particular that both Leica Brasil and the film's directing studio (Kid Burro) has deleted all official releases of this film. Even semi-official releases from individual producing staff and associated Radioaktive Film are all gone, and that means dead video links in news reports. A detailed description of the film would be very useful to any reader without access to the original. 109.246.2.242 (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tank man. Highly unlikely to have WP:LASTING effect to meet WP:NEVENT. -Zanhe (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not notable enough for an article of its own, but probably deserves some mention on the Tank Man page. DemPon (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Chainsmokers#Tours. T. Canens (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World War Joy Tour[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a concert tour, not yet reliably sourcable as notable per WP:NTOUR. The notability standards for concert tours explicitly state that a tour is not automatically notable enough for its own article just because you can technically verify the dates and venues (see "Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability") — rather, the notability test for a concert tour requires media coverage to contextualize the tour's importance in "artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". So no prejudice against recreation in the fall if it becomes possible to add and source that type of content, but a concert tour does not automatically qualify for an article just because the band's own self-published website verifies that it's happening. For the record, this seems to have been created as a redirect in March, and then converted to a standalone article by an anonymous IP within the last 48 hours — so I would also have no objection to restoring a redirect if that's what consensus prefers. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect no indication of meeting WP:NTOUR and so restore the redirect as an ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arika Sato[edit]

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

Notability template of 10 years unaddressed. Appearance on a reality show 2 presidents ago. Only “reference” is a defunct tv channel. Having a few hundred thousand Instagram followers does not make anyone special. This has got to stop. Trillfendi (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable references, does not meet WP:GNG. Should be deleted. Sora Sailor (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stale fancruft. — JFG ^talk 00:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and is just old fancruft. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Germcrow (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not famous enough.PE65000 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, does not pass WP:GNG.--SalmanZ (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Macolino[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NBAND. Notability not established beyond local area. His bar is notable, but subject was not the founder of the bar. Rogermx (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, neither as an educator nor in any other capacity. --Tataral (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brighton Bar. I found a ton of news sources that mention him, but only as the owner of the bar. -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against also redirecting to the bar. Certainly no notability as an academic and educator (why I found this AfD), and the poor sourcing means we should not allow even the minimal claims of the article to remain in the encycloepdia, per WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 18:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of child prodigies[edit]

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

The term "child prodigy" is inherently subjective; it would be impossible to create an unbiased list. The list describes itself as "haphazard" and that it "probably [does] not represent the typical experience of a child prodigy." ―Susmuffin ^Talk 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--material is well referenced, as it is much of the material on Wikipedia is more subjective than I would like. That means improve, not delete.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and I'm a bit surprised at myself for this), seems to easily meet WP:LISTN. It could use some work to help determine inclusion criteria, maybe something like: subject needs an article on WP and has to be explicitly described as a prodigy by a WP:RS. Just a quick idea there, but I'm sure something better can be hashed out if there's some need. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But this does not meet WP:LISTN at all - " One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Noone has given any reliable source (or any source at all) that treats all - or even most - of the people listed here as "prodigies".--Smerus (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The concept child prodigy is notable, and that's what we should expect "discussion as a group" to look like for this topic. And no doubt sources on that concept even include discussion of certain examples and comparisons. If you're instead interpreting that guideline to mean that there should be a source that lumps together the same entries as our list, that's neither necessary nor a reasonable interpretation, as that would basically require that we've copied our list. postdlf (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I have pointed out (below) the article child prodigy is headed by a sourced definition of the term, and that is what we should use as a criterion here, for consistency. It is for those who wish to interpret the term differently to justify doing so.--Smerus (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was responding to your argument that LISTN wasn't satisfied. Did you mean to insert your comment elsewhere in this discussion? As you now seem to be talking about verifying individual entries rather than whether the list should be deleted or kept. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the whippersnappers. I don't believe child actors merit inclusion however, Shirley Temple excepted, but that's an issue for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, clarify, and upgrade per Deacon Vorbis. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:09, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but include only those names that are described as child prodigy by reliable sources. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. It's all too vague and subjective. What does it mean to suggest keeping those described as prodigies by 'reliable sources'? When there is no accepted definition of prodigy, however reliable the source, it's going to be subjective. The only possible exception is musical prodigies, where there is some consensus in terms of appreciated performances or compositions. André-Marie Ampère a child prodigy, when he wrote about stuff at the age of 13? William Rowan Hamilton read Hebrew at the age of 7? My Israeli nephew reads it at the age of 4. Anne-Marie Imafidon got a scholarship to Oxford at 15? So what? Ricky Schroder got a Golden Globe award age 9 - that fos for acting a 9-year old, not for being a prodigy. Come on, folks, let's get real.--Smerus (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- However, to be constructive, I have begun an attempt at tidying it up of its worst excesses, by sticking to the sourced definition in WP child prodigy 'A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer.' Only a minority of those on the list meet this definition.--Smerus (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should have waited for consensus. The lead describes the list as those "who have come to the haphazard attention of history or current news." I think if a reliable source describes them as a prodigy, they should be included. That is as much tidying up as should be done. Subuey (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the entries are blue linked to their own Wikipedia articles, and they are referred to as child prodigies in reliable sources, then obviously this list article is valid. Dream Focus 15:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis that I personally found this page useful as a reference material on the subject of "Child Prodigies." Vecht (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)— Vecht (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as a POV fork when the idea of "child prodigy" is subjective, and Wikipedia is supposed to be nuetral. Promoting personal opinions in ways like this goes against such a principle. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The significant problem with list entrants is the sourcing. Many seem to throw the word “prodigy” in as a substitute for talented rather than justifying the descriptor. I believe the list is and would be more useful if the term was not as subjective as it currently stands. It may be a bit too difficult for us to develop specific criteria for inclusion. There are lots of smart and talented people out there, but at what point do they ascend to prodigyhood (without the assitance of professional marketing/PR or parents getting involved)?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, and perhaps rename to something along the lines of "List of children considered prodigies". As others have pointed out, it's hard to decide on criteria for the list, but a RfC may help. As it stands, I'd prefer both these actions over deletion. Nanophosis (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saran (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, dubious notability and cannot find any sources. Sheldybett (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - fails WP:NACTOR. The article even says "who acts mainly in supporting roles" - not a claim of notability. Also fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending evidence that the actor actually fails NACTOR (which guideline the nom initially mislinked). Our articles on both Kadal (2013 film) and Sagaa imply his roles were fairly significant, and while I haven't personally seen either film to verify this I doubt either of the above delete !votes has either. I also don't know if the films are actually notable, but if their lack of notability is going to be used to delete this article, those articles need to be deleted first. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR - no notable roles, contribution or coverage - the two citations are to film reviews, not articles about Saran - does not meet any notability guideline - Epinoia (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: You're the third person to say he doesn't meet NACTOR but the first since I pointed out that he probably does, so I guess I'll ask you: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films I guess depends on how you define "multiple", but do you think two is not enough? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88 - Oxford defines multiple as "having or involving several parts" and defines several as "more than two" - also, they have to be significant roles, in the films cited Saran has supporting roles - also, they have to be notable films, neither of the films mentioned meet WP:NFILM, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" or any of the 5 criteria of WP:NFO - Epinoia (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"supporting" and "significant" are not mutually exclusive. In one of the films I cited he was the lead, and in the other he appears to have been the lead for the first part of the film before the time skip (?). Did you read my comment? in the films cited Saran has supporting roles implies not. Also, as I said above, if you are going to argue that an actor is not notable because his significant film roles have been in non-notable films, you need to AFD those articles first, since topics with standalone articles that appear at a glance to cite multiple reliable sources are presumed notable. Would I be correct in guessing that your assumption to the contrary is that you yourself had not heard of them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- an indication of the significance of a role is the cast listing; in Kadal he is listed 12th in a cast of 15; in Sagaa he is listed 4th out of 6 characters; in Jilla he is listed 27th; in Vada Chennai he is listed 18th out of a cast of 19 - based on that I would say that his roles are not significant - the article tries to inflate the importance of his roles with dramatic language, "He became hero" and "held a pivotal role" - WP:NOTPROMOTION - as far as I know there is no guideline that says that non-notable films must be nominated for AfD before non-notable actors - Epinoia (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in Sagaa he is listed 4th out of 6 characters Are you reading the IMDb page? Neither Wikipedia nor IMDb are reliable sources, but in this case Wikipedia appears to be more in-depth, and therefore likely correct; the IMDb cast list appears to be arranged in alphabetical order, with all but one actor given mononymically by their given name. Please be a bit more careful in the future. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR T. Canens (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giang Brothers[edit]

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

Not much reliable source on the group, fails WP:ANYBIO B dash (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are just about enough independent sources, and I suspect there are more in languages other than English. Rathfelder (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist, Per Rathfelder (talk)-MA Javadi (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is Who Awards[edit]

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

Google search shows only one site independent of the subject, talking about Awards in the future. Per WP:GNG, there isn't significant coverage on the topic to denote notability. This article has been through AfD before and the result was Delete. No new coverage since. Alexf^(talk) 10:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and lacks reliable independent sources. All but one of the current sources are completely unreliable gossip blogs and the author appears to be hear solely for promotion/ – Ammarpad (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatantly promotional, doesn't look like it will be notable enough to save. creffett (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Francisco[edit]

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

Article has been created by Nfrancisco90. Their only edit has been to create this article. She fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league or senior international football. GNG is failed due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The main claim to notability here seems to be an "influencer" status. Which doesn't seem to stack up. (I am no social expert, but ~22k Instagram, ~2k Twitter and ~2k Youtube subscribers wouldn't seem especially notable). Otherwise there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. And no indication that meets WP:NSPORTS. The possible auto-bio/COI/promo overtones are also a concern. Guliolopez (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and the above. In order to be notable, "influencers" need to demonstrate, well, influence. XOR'easter (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet our notability guidelines, no indication of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 03:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barnaby Eaton-Jones[edit]

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

Dubious notability. refs are his own theatre group, an amateur book review forum and an award site itself not notable enough for an article.Self promo basically. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does seem very close to the contributor, in that the contributor has only added to articles concerning Barnaby's production. Still, I was able to find a BBC article[1] and an article from The Chortle[2] that mention Barnaby Eaton-Jones. That's not exactly WP:BASIC but it is something so I would say the article could be redeemed or at least merged into the Robin of Sherwood: The Knights Of The Apocalypse article. Though, even in that article it seems like Barnaby Eaton-Jones is over-quoted; specifically the quote in the production section seems like nothing more than advertising. Userqio (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. If we can't find any secondary sources (I can't) then we need to delete this. Clearly a WP:NPROMO violation as well. Skirts⁸⁹ 14:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to soruce it, and I suppose I could argue that he passes WP:CREATIVE by the skin of his teeth. I added some of the coverage of his blues Brothers tribute band. In addition, there is coverage of the theater company, reviews and articles about new productions, and and is a good deal of coverage of his career as a comedia, solo, as part of a duo, and as part of a trio - all in the local and regional press (I used a Proquest news archive search). That coverage, and his version of Robin Hood may pass CREATIVE. I'm honestly not sure.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have 2 deletes and 2 not-quite-keeps. Need a bit more input to establish whether the GNG/ACTOR/CREATIVE guidelines are being met
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is definitely a marginal case, but I don't think he meets GNG with significant mentions. It comes down to WP:CREATIVE crit.3 (being part of a major reviewed work.) Neither The Knights of the Apocalypse radio play or I'm Sorry I'll Read That Again clearly meet the threshold (and I'm going to want to take a look at their notability a bit more closely) and the dug-up mentions in this AfD don't clearly meet the significance threshold (the BBC one certainly doesn't as it's just a quote, the Chortle has a bit more but he's certainly not the subject and the publisher isn't as prestigious as the BBC anyhow.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not quite enough sources found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Symonds[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NMODEL and based on the poor sourcing (newsny.net is some sort of odd blog, Medium, Hufforbes(?!?) and primary sources) WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. The sources are either quite weak (ex. a Medium post and Newsny) or her own website, which does nothing to establish notability. Lots of people also attend charity events or get magazine covers, so none of that by itself makes her stand out as a notable model or fashion creator. As to the puff nature of this article, I say WP:NOPROMO. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has significantly detailed references such as Medium and News NY. There are similar articles on Wikipedia with few or no issues, see pages of Arika Sato and Sofia Nikitchuk. Instead of deletion, we can invite other editors to edit the page by putting a BLP sources or notability tag on the page. The article can be shortened to remove sections of personal life and the biography section can be trimmed. As for the puff nature of the article, it can be cleaned up. OliverKianzo (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medium articles are not reliable, since that site hosts user-generated content. News NY does not appear to be a reliable website either. In terms of the other articles and how they relate to AfDs, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There's simply nothing out there about her which definitively passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no notability whatsoever. Promo for no reason. I’m about sick of these lost cause articles. There’s nothing to save!!! Trillfendi (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can see articles on google search. Looks notable. Additional citations could be added by community editors. Draft could be improved upon though, for instance the following sentence should be removed - In 2018, Symonds attended the 20th annual AmFAR gala in New York City and the New York City Ballet. Sora Sailor (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link to any articles which might pass WP:GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Links like Al Watan, Emirates Voice and Ounousa help meet WP:GNG for the article. Sora Sailor (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Newshunter12. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:00, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable person.PE65000 (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:GNG perhaps WP:TOOSOON Lubbad85 (☎) 22:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Feingold[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and was created by a single purpose account. Sources on this local Jewish leader are either mere interviews, self-published materials, or passing mentions. Most awards received are generic local awards from the Salzburg area, and his two national awards were given to countless others (one has a 2000+ page list of recipients). He lived through extraordinary events, but per WP:NOTINHERITED, he does not inherit that notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:Basic and WP:GNG. The Nominator has a long history of bias against longevity related articles bordering on obsession to delete them. 71.161.239.237 (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)— 71.161.239.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This AfD is about Marco Feingold, not personal attacks against me. By the way, can you please point to which sustained WP:SIGCOV sources push this local religious leader over the WP:GNG bar? Newshunter12 (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no personal attack, I was just pointing out facts. 71.161.239.237 (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a flagrant resume-style page about a non-notable figure. President of a synagogue, really? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The extended interviews in Stern and Krone prove WP:SIGCOV. Certainly the article should be improved, but WP:deletion is not cleanup. — JFG ^talk 03:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG He's an interesting old guy who had some news features published, which hardly seems like sustained WP:SIGCOV. Media loves oldstercruft for puff feature pieces, that doesn't instantly mean he inherits these publications' notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misinterpreting our WP:INHERIT guideline. But I digress. Let's see what other editors have to say. — JFG ^talk 03:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet WP:ANYBIO schetm (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looking at him he does seem to meet the criteria --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Dworsky[edit]

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

This singer doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:NSINGER and I could find no third party sources covering her extensively (beyond passing mentions). Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a lot of her singing for the major films are referenced. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, they seem just passing mentions on the films and don't cover particularly in-depth about what she do and who she is. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7, fair enough. I would think she would be notable as the equivalent of a playback singer, and have some more news articles as with Lea Salonga AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AngusWOOF, I've tried searching but I couldn't find any in Google News or Google beyond one or two sentence mentions of her roles --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Film, record and radio credits add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, but there's no third party source covers. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been lacking reliable sources which it has failed to meet WP:NFILM, as I agreed with Eastmain. Sheldybett (talk) 10:04, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sheldybett, you mean disagree. He voted for keep. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find a half-way decent write up of her. I've added it to the article. ~~I think that this information about her could be incorporated into her brother's article and her article can redirect there.~~ I found an article about her brother where he's written music for her, etc. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her brother's "article" is a redirect to the cast of Prairie Home Companion. No use going there. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, the articles don't cover her specifically but more of her music --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: This article is about her. But as Mary Mark Ockerbloom points out, there's no real article about her brother, either. What a mess. I think she's very borderline, but I wanted to see what I could find and I did turn up a little. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl, I agree. While she's in some major films I can't find significant content about her specifically. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: I'm confused. This article discusses her career, where she lives and her connection to her brother. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl, hmm this is a weird one. I suspect most of the sources are offline. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

−

Keep. Found an entry for "Dworsky, Sally" in the published book Disney Voice Actors: A Biographical Dictionary; as noted above, she has extensive film, record and radio credits. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Mark Ockerbloom, yes but there's little media cover about her. While her work might be notable, she isn't. Notability isn't inherited. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a lot more biographical info in the sources (the one added by Megalibrarygirl, and other shorter newspaper articles). She has been in two groups - Moore by Four, and Uma, and reviews of their albums and shows include some reviews of her performances. I also note that the song When You Believe, sung by Sally Dworsky and Michelle Pfeiffer, won the Academy Award for Best Original Song in 1999. She also co-wrote That's as Close as I'll Get to Loving You, which could mean that she meets WP:COMPOSER #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." All of this could be added to the article. Also, I don't think that "Notability isn't inherited" applies here. WP:NOTINHERITED actually says "notability is usually neither inherited nor inherent" (my emphasis), and "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances". Writing a notable song is one circumstance where notability may be inherited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, but as it stands the article is just a list of her performances with a paragraph about her. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is about the subject of the article, not the content. The fact that an article can be improved is not a reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus only on reliable sources covering the subject (not a relative) in depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have edited the article and added the sources and information I found. As I said above, I think that she meets WP:COMPOSER #1 "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition," having co-written That's as Close as I'll Get to Loving You (for which she also got ASCAP awards for most-performed songs two years running). Also, although the Academy Award for Best Original Song goes to the composer and lyricist, not the performers, two songs in which she sang won that award, in 1995 and 1999. There was certainly newspaper coverage of her singing in those films. I would say that she also meets WP:BASIC, which says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There are two mid-length articles largely about her, and many more shorter articles, reviews or sections in articles about artists/groups she performed with. (I don't know why her brother Richard Dworsky is redirected to A Prairie Home Companion - I found some lengthy coverage about him (and about her other brother Alan) when I was searching for her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since the AFD nomination including extra sourced content and additions of references to reliable sources coverage so deletion is no longer necessary Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Outstanding job by those who improved it. Kablammo (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improved beyond all recognition compared with the bare-bones under-referenced list-type article which was nominated. Narky Blert (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgen Zadorin[edit]

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

Not notable, written by a banned sockpuppet, and clearly promotional

Google scholar shows almost no citations The papers of his listed in the article are conference presentations that have never been cited. There are no books in WorldCat

Furthermore, the intent is clearly promotional , as demonstrated ny the repeated inclusion of his association with a non-notable company.

The person who did write it is a known sockpuppet of Marelo842. Under the current rules, we can not use speedy G5, because the article was written before the sockpuppettry was detected. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. The use of the adjective "exceptional" is usually a robust indicator that the subject is not exceptional. Publishing 40 papers is hardly a claim to notability , even I can better that. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and that claim was "papers" not :peer-reviewed papers" --and there isn't any evidence for it. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DGG. Promotional content written by a sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The phrase "no credible claim to significance" comes to mind. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Published more than 40 papers" could, in some cases, indicate a credible claim of significance, if those 40 papers had been heavily cited by others. These ones haven't, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Three papers in 2006 in Vascular Pharmacology journal which has kind of a 'meh' impact factor. Nothing to base a claim of notability upon. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Created by a sockpuppet and fails WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong forum. Nominations for redirects should be made at WP:Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Villasenor[edit]

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

There is a proper biographical article for this person already created, however a search for the person only gives a redirect page. If this article was deleted, then it would allow for the proper article to be searched and accessed. OliverEastwood (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 00:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Mendy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self-promotion by non-notable person. The two sources given consist of an article that has no mention of him and a single photo in a photo gallery of "Linux people" in a source of no reliability. No sources identified by Google for "Montana Mendy" help to satisfy WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems that the notability situation hasn't changed since the last time the article was deleted at AfD, even though the article has been edited by *checks clipboard* MontanaMendy. Newspaper archive search came up empty. Subject does not have significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources, and does not quality under any SNG. Bakazaka (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have {{db-g11}}'d it if I had encountered it earlier. – Athaenara ✉ 04:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything to show he meets guidelines to have an article on here. Just because he allegedly worked on Linux doesn't make him automatically notable. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable person.PE65000 (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lourdes 03:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip W. Simpson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not reliably sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. Of the 22 footnotes here, 21 of them are literally his own books metaverifying their own existence on Google Books or the self-published websites of their own publishers, and the other one is still the self-published website of the book's publisher, just to its front splash page instead of to a page actually promoting the book per se. As always, you do not make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article by metareferencing his work to itself to prove that it exists: you make a writer notable enough for a Wikipedia article by reliably sourcing his work to media coverage about him and his work, such as critical reviews and real arts journalism. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. There is clearly a COI and I suspect this is in fact self-promotional. Created by an SPA and with biographical information not contained in any citation. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]Whiskey71 (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC) (edited to make it visible by User:Dushan Jugum).[reply]

Directory entries, "participating writer" profiles on the self-published websites of literary festivals, press releases from your own publishers and employers, blogs and YouTube clips of you speaking about yourself are not notability-supporting sources. A couple of these sources are okay, but most of them are not valid support for notability at all — somebody else (not you) is going to have to review whether the sources that are okay are enough or not, because even with a couple of better sources the notability test for a writer still requires more than just that your name has appeared in newspapers once or twice. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. "The person has created a significant or well-known work" WP:AUTHOR is the best hope here and he falls short. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

~~'Keep~~' Of the Sources brought above, by Whisky71, School Library Journal, [20], Kirkus, [21], Western Leader [22], I'm not sure about Teenreads [23], and this one, [24] from the university where he teaches a writing course, can be used to source bio. Meets WP:AUTHOR. All sources now on page need to be removed, because they are all PRIMARY links to publisher's pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, which one of his works is "significant or well-known" and why? Is a few reviews in, a very local free paper and Teens Reads etc enough? We are not trying to verify his work, but decide if he is Wikipedia Notable. (School Library Journal, [25]|Dushan Jugum]] (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

His page at the New Zealand Book Council [26] is an indication that sources can be found. As is the fact that he has publishes with major presses, and at least one of his books has been picked up by a mainstream press in the U.S. I think we should look a little harder. Removing the links to publishers now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON for this AUTHOR. Taking a closer look, the best source is Kirkus [27], although it is not the bluechip source it used to be. I am not confident that the review in School Library Journal, [28] isn real, i.e., it may be a post by a post-at-will, and is certainly extremely brief. And I take User:Dushan Jugum's point about the Western Leader.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Moldova[edit]

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

Reason Akld guy (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Content that comprises nothing about the topic, only a brief sentence about a breakaway from another body. Nothing significant remains of any content added since article's creation in 2005. Akld guy (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Haven't found any sources of it with a Google search, which turned up such results as an identically-named organization in Egypt. John M Wolfson (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. The number of pageviews has averaged 2 for the last three weeks, which are probably bots, so if anyone is going to suggest that it become a redirect to Confederation of Trade Unions of the Republic of Moldova (listed in its See also section), I'd suggest that wouldn't be worthwhile. Akld guy (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Akld guy, If you are the nominator of an article for deletion, your desire to delete it is assumed (unless you specify that you are neutral, and nominating for other reasons). Because of this, you do not get to !vote (that is, for the second time) in your own AfD (WP:GD). Bakazaka (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakazaka: You are correct, as stated at WP:GD, Miscellaneous advice section. It hadn't occurred to me that the closer would count my proposal among the Deletes, and I'm not entirely certain that all closers do that when tallying up. I've seen iVotes elsewhere by proposers at, for example WP:ANI. The closer in this case should be able to figure it out now that you've drawn attention to it. Thanks. Akld guy (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-article with no citations to reliable sources - does not meet WP:GNG or any other guideline - how did this make it into mainspace? - Epinoia (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. I would not object to sending this to draft to see if it gets improved in the next six months, though I am dubious that it would be. bd2412 T 00:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway Killer (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. None on Rotten Tomatoes. None found in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - certainly possible, none of the clear-cut reviewers have covered it. However, it's oddly got less of the dross than usual. Could use more opinions on Theaterbyte and cinemagazine - neither source gives me enough info to make an easy decision on reliability. That said, neither comes across as the blog-style reviews - hence, unsure. It's also a rather google-unfriendly title when it comes to searching results. I would also not suggest searching these results 3 minutes before going to bed as I just have. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NFILM - has not, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and does not meet any of the 5 criteria of WP:NFO - definite delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless there are better sources. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Paula Abdul. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Goodspeed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This person fails WP:BLP1E. the only reason why this person got her own article was because of her suicide. Her very small appearance on American Idol achieved no notability when she was alive and has since been forgotten. All the information on this article is already on Paula Abdul's main article as a brief mention. There is no point for this article to exist. Mysticair667537 (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paula Abdul. This article would fall under WP:1E or WP:NOTNEWS. Most coverage the subject has received is concentrated to a very short period of time as a direct response of her suicide, and can be adequately covered in the Paula Abdul article. feminist (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paula Abdul. John M Wolfson (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Paula Abdul) per WP:BIO1E, all the functional coverage was generated on her Idol performance. Given that article is strict on extraneous content, the Abdul targeting makes sense. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the article fails WP:BIO1E, but don't quite understand why a redirect to Paula Abdul is warranted. A user search for Paula Goodspeed seems unlikely, and anyone searching for info about unfortunate incidents in Paula Abdul's personal life would go directly to her article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And Redirect to Paula Abdul to delete the revisions so it will help stop users from reverting it back to a article. Mysticair667537 (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Moore (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “porn star won an award over 25 years ago” must end. What have they done since? Exist? Trillfendi (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. The award is enough to establish notability, even in the absence of in-depth coverage. What she has done in the last 25 years (or whetehr she is still living) doesn't affect the notability given or recognized by the award. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porn awards conferring notability while failing WP:BASIC is an appeal to the now-superseded WP:PORNBIO SNG. Proof of WP:ENT notability needs independent RS acknowledgement, which does not appear to be available. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It fails WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. There are no independent reliable sources, and no sources that can be used to build even a basic biography. The sources that do exist tell us only that someone by this name did something 25 years ago. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT without significant coverage from independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sarah. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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