Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 November	23 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Roets[edit]

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

All provided sources are mere mentions of the subject as a spokesperson of AfriForum or are written by the subject himself; there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of the subject himself in RS. Does not meet WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find any better coverage online, although it's possible that there exist RS in Afrikaans that I was not able to find. Coverage of the book written by the subject, Kill the Boer, appears to be limited to publications such as South Africa Today that have clear biases in common with the book itself and that I hesitate to call reliable in context. The article also appears to have been written by a SPA with a clear conflict of interest, as their username has "AfriForum" in it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we don't disregard sources merely because their political postions "have clear biases in common with the book itself." E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, withdrawing nomination, provided sources demonstrate notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - These sources offer non-tirival coverage of him, though related to his work for AfriForum [1][2]. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep in addition to sources brought by Indy beetle, his book has gotten press attention Outrage surrounds book claiming top ANC officials ‘killed the boer’ . Ozy (magazine): Behind Trump's Tweet: Meet the South African Lawyer Defending White Rights; Mail & Guardian, "AfriForum deputy chief executive Ernst Roets responded on social media that the group will be communicating with the US government so they can “visit Washington again in the months to follow”. AfriForum went on a tour of the US in May where the group was also photographed with Trump’s security adviser, John Bolton who was gifted a copy of Roets’s book Kill the Boer."; The Sydney Morning Herald, "This debate will be reignited at the end of June when Ernst Roets, the deputy CEO of Afrikaner-rights group AfriForum, launches a book, Kill the Boer, warning a “looming process of ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a serious threat”.The narrative of a white persecution has gained considerable traction in Australia, where about 163,000 (mostly white) South African-born people now live.". E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2018 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Kozak[edit]

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

Time for another AfD. The minor municipal recognition she received is a clear case of WP:BIO1E, and the other coverage is thoroughly routine. Being the oldest person of an arbitrary ethnicity/religion is not inherently notable, and most of the article content is longevity trivia. WP:NOPAGE applies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E, and WP:NOPAGE. There is no policy that the "oldest x" is notable and this article is packed with longevity fancruft like she was the oldest living Jew, Oldest Jew ever until..., good at scrabble, and bits of personal wisdom. Her name, life dates, and nationality are best handled on the List of United States supercentenarians where they already reside well down the list. This WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find very little coverage of her until she died. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Giuffrè[edit]

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

Composer whose article is not really stating, or reliably sourcing, any strong claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC. This consists entirely of purely biographical detail that has no bearing on notability at all, rather than any particular context for why he might be encyclopedically significant -- and the only source actually being cited at all is a PDF of the cover page, but not the core content, of a catalogue of his son's work, not his (which is not a source that demonstrates Giovanni's notability at all, because it isn't about Giovanni). As well, the article was created by an editor with the username "Giuffrépediaa", so this is most likely conflict of interest editing by a relative of his. I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody with solid access to Greek or Italian archives of reliable sourcing can locate more substantive evidence of notability than is actually present here -- but as things currently stand, nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO, and I can't find significant reliable source coverage (or, really, any coverage) of him to meet WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Seems that nothing can be found on him. The Greek name of him mentioned in the article (Γωαννις Γιογφρε) [3] makes no sense in Greek, it is not Greek; e.g. Giovanni (= John) in Greek is Ιωάννης, colloquially Γιάννης. ——Chalk19 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS. According to the official list [4] of the Corfu Philharmonic bandleaders, there was someone called Ιωάννης Γομπές who was the leader of the band in 1923 (just that year), and who is also included in the list of its teachers [5] (no period is specified). Γομπές = Gobes is far way from (the anyway absurd) Γιογφρε, which was supposed to be Giovanni Giuffrè's Greek name. On the other hand, in the article it is written that Giuffrè/Γιογφρε "was a student, teacher and band leader with the Philharmonic Society of Corfu for approximately 7 years". Even if Γομπές was actually Giuffrè/Γιογφρε (meaning that he was a student, [and a] teacher for six years in total, and band leader with the Philharmonic for one more year?), I was unable to find anything else on him in Greek sources. So, since the person cannot realy be identified so far, and no sources can be found on him, the article is original research by its creator, probably a family member. ——Chalk19 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Maybe there's more about him in Greek sources, hence my qualifier. His son certainly seems to be notable enough, and it might be good to transfer some material to that article if this one gets deleted. Atchom (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Godfrey Peuchen[edit]

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

Non-notable Titanic passenger –dlthewave ☎ 19:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the DCB entry already in the article, see here at the Toronto Sun, here at the Vancouver Sun, here and here at The Star, this book where he warrants a full chapter, this book where he gets a smaller but significant mention. There are probably others, but that should suffice to show he meets WP:GNG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has an article in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography which, per WP:ANYBIO, is a strong primal facie indicator of notability. Atchom (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep, reads as notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep As per PohranicniStraze, and Atchom there certaily looks like enough to meet notability requirements. Curdle (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Passes WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 29 November 2018 (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 and redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Redirecting as plausible search term, per close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mabel Fortune Driscoll 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Drake Cardeza[edit]

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

Non-notable Titanic survivor. Insufficient RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Atchom (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surviving the Titanic is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. ——SerialNumber54129 13:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enoughCrook1 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Symons (sailor)[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; subject has received very little RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's plenty of coverage and so the subject passes the WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything in the article that makes him noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much coverage. ——SerialNumber54129 13:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Symons' role in the disaster was controversial at the time, which is not well represented in the current article. There has also been recent coverage of him, with his niece trying to clear his name [6] and [7]. Symons is a key character in a 2012 dramatization of the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry [8], [9] and [10]. The article needs improving, so it focuses more on his role, the focus on him during the inquiry and recent renewed coverage, and less about three brothers running into each other during WWI, which he is definitely not notable for. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Borderline one, this, but the disaster has been written about so often that I think one of the crew in charge of a lifeboat is probably just notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2018 (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 and redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mabel Fortune Driscoll[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; no significant coverage beyond being a Titanic passenger. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 10:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic: no need for more information about her than that. PamD 10:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's and Parsecboy's rationales. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI. Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Titanic survivor aspect means sources SHOULD exist. Every survivor was covered in great detail after. Though the article as it stands is kind of.. meh. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:09, 29 November 2018 (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) 16:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Flora Fortune[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; no significant coverage beyond being a Titanic passenger. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article that makes her noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2018 (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) 16:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Francis McCaffry[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; no significant coverage outside of being a victim of the Titanic –dlthewave ☎ 16:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP doesnt appear to be noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI (and yes, it does contain copyright violations). Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's got copyright violations, shouldn't they be removed right now? (Per the instructions at the top of this edit window) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just being on the Titanic does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E ——SerialNumber54129 11:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Vanamonde (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hugo Ross[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG; no significant coverage outside of being a victim of the Titanic –dlthewave ☎ 16:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom's rationale. --1l2l3k (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W C M_email 22:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Oneevent, no indication of any notability whatsoever apart from it; the implication that the person's sexual orientation might imply some notability is peculiarly unencyclopaedic. If the article is eventually kept, it will have to be completely rewritten from scratch as part of an open CCI. Assuming it is deleted, no objection to subsequent creation of a redirect to Passengers of the RMS Titanic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Not strictly the consensus, but reading between the lines, this is a reasonable outcome which meets the community's judgement that this isn't ready for mainspace and also meets ArchaicW's desire to have more time to work on this. I'm going to move it to Draft:Coxwold Pottery. It can be worked on there, with (almost) no deadline for completion. The WP:AfC review process will give you feedback on how you're progressing without immediate threat of deletion. Please take a look at WP:YFA for general guidance on how to write a good article, and also WP:NCORP for some more specific requirements for articles about a company. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coxwold Pottery[edit]

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

No indication that subject meets WP:GNG guidelines, let alone WP:NCORP. Current references on the page are 1) nothing more than a verification that Peter Dick died (nothing included about the article's subject), and 2) a non-independent source that mentions the subject only in passing. My WP:BEFORE search brought up no additional sources to add. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very disappointed that this short article is again thretened with deletion, I must say I'm puzzled. 'Largoplazo' initially threatened to delete it, I strongly contested this and he moved to 'Serious Issues'. Now 'Jmertel123' is not happy! I'm a bit puzzled again, as the point he makes seems to be quite minor - could you not just suggest whatever you think should be changed? Anyway, I am preparing a substantial rebuttal of this threat, but due to other commitments etc it will take me a few days, so I would be very grateful if you would do nothing for now Thanks @Largplazo: @Jmertel123: ArchaicW (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchaicW (talk • contribs)

Comment My concern is that there are not sufficient references to signify notability of the article's subject, and I was not able to find additional sources to meet the notability criteria. Specifically, see the general notability guidelines section of the notability policy. Certainly, if there are sources available that I couldn't find, please do add them. But without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, the subject simply doesn't merit an article. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - somewhat promotional. If Peter Dick is a well-known ceramicist, perhaps an article about him would be more appropriate. Deb (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point! It was not me, the writer of the article, that changed the title. My original title was 'Coxwold Pottery Peter and Jill Dick'. Also, to be even more semantic, it should really be 'Coxwold pottery', with a small 'p', as we are talking about the product, not the business. But across numerous references on the internet, it is almost always referred to as 'Coxwold Pottery', so maybe best left? ArchaicW (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jmertel23

Not sure if you read my last comment, as I think I may have got your 'username' misspelled, as I am not familiar with this mark-up language.

However, having studied your comments, I have had a new thought. Rather than spend time and effort trying to respond to your comments, it seems to me that it would be better to set out to improving the embryo article?

This I have started to do, specifically so far I have added a major quotation from a book on pottery techniques and two illustrations. Also, I am now in contact with some persons who were acquainted with the Coxwold Pottery and Peter and Jill Dick. They have provided me with an important Obituary for Peter Dick and promised to provide further information.

You may well ask why I did not do this in the first place instead of putting up such a short article with not enough references and links? (On that point, the lack of links on Wikipedia into the article I think is not surprising, as there was nothing there to link to! But on the wider Internet there are numerous references to the Coxwold Pottery and Peter and Jill Dick.)

Well, two reasons, first I thought I was writing in the spirit of Wikipedia that anybody could put up material and anybody could edit it, so if the article was up there others could find it and add to it.

Secondly, I never thought for a second that it would be jumped on so quickly and threatened with deletion! With 5.75 million articles on Wikipedia, it hardly seemed very important. I expected that I could simply add material to the article over the course of time.

So, could I please ask you not to delete this article now. I am already in possession of extra material that supports the believe that Coxwold pottery meets the notability criteria, but it will take time to contact others and to edit in the material.

Indeed, could I suggest that either you remove the deletion threat now, or leave it alone for say a month to allow me to create a more balanced article?

I can absolutely assure you that what has been written so far is honest and correct, is in no way meant to ‘promote’ the pottery and that no one will be mislead by what they read so far. Many thanks ArchaicW (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATES Could anyone following this discussion please note that, as above, I have now added a considerable amount of material to the article and a good number of references. PLEASE NOTE I am not finished - I still have a number of edits to make! However I hope Jmertel23 will now recognise the depth of the article and please leave it in place! For anyone interested, I do suggest you search not on Wikipedia but 'Google Images Coxwold Pottery', where you will see many fine examples of the pottery. ArchaicW (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArchaicW, deletion is not a threat, it's simply that articles in Wikipedia's mainspace must meet Wikipedia's content policies. If you need to continue to work on it for it to meet those standards and you really believe you can do it, I'd recommend that you incubate the article either in the draft namespace or your userspace. It can be restored as a normal article once it meets those standards. Wikipedia does require that the subject of articles be covered substantially in independent, reliable sources, for important reasons, but your work won't be lost if you can't find any right now, you can work on it in a draft and submit it when things are ready.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alpha3031 Thank you for your helpful comments. Could you please note THAT THIS ARTICLE IS HUGELY CHANGED from the first version threatened with deletion by Jmertel23! It is re-structured, has illustrations and is literally double in length and now has added many relevant links and references to published works. I believe the article now demonstrates the position and status of the Coxwold Pottery/Peter and Jill Dick. (I'm sorry there is no book written c2000 that says 'Peter & Jill Dick were the greatest potters ever'!) But the numerous links and references I think demonstrate that they were widely acknowledged for their artistic skills and the quality of their pottery. I think now it meets most if not all criteria for notability etc? I'm sorry, but I can think of many Wikipedia articles which I have read which do not approach the level of the material I think I have now been able to present in this article. But if you can see more specific areas where you feel more information would be needed please let me know. But for anyone reading this now, IT IS A DIFFERENT ARTICLE from the one threatened with deletion. Many thanks to all following this discussion. ArchaicW (talk) 10:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the neccessary notability criteria for companies. As User:Deb said it might be worth looking into creating an article for the potter himself. I would suggest that you go through WP:AFC though as there are some issues with your article creations. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I reviewed the current sourcing, and Googled Coxwold Pottery to find more. Aside from this article in a book [[11]], there's unfortunately not enough meaningful coverage. I'll be blunt - I'm not in any way judging the quality of the pottery - it looks beautiful - but I generally discount most auction listings, since except for a few high end art houses, a wide range of items can be put on auction. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. I thought an option might be to redirect to Coxwold#Notable_residents, merging a mention into that section about the pottery and Peter, but my personal benchmark for including people on "notable resident" lists is that the person have their own article. I'm not seeing enough for a Peter Dick article with the available online sources. Others may feel differently about a merge to salvage some info - it could certainly be brought up on the Coxwold talk page Talk:Coxwold. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:25, 29 November 2018 (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 deleted -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mofus (association)[edit]

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

Readers of a nervous disposition beware. The page as first created on 20 November 2006 contained a link to the "Mofus official homepage" - it's actually a porn site - which was till there until I deleted it today. Seems the page was created as a hoax, and subsequent editors have added to it or edited in good faith without checking. No reliable sources, and the website of the organisation it is supposedly affiliated with does not provide any help (though my Swedish is practically non-existant, the search facility there ought to have given something).

Included in this nomination is the disambiguation page Mofus - if the above is deleted it becomes irrelevant. Emeraude (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a local high school science club. I can't find any sources to build a decent article on. /Julle (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mofus appears to be short for Mölndals Oberoende Forskare och Unga Sanningssökare (Molndals Independent Scientists and Young Thruthseekers). There is nothing that shows notability except perhaps that they appeared (among many others) at a Science Festival in Gothenburgh. Sjö (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2018 (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia rose[edit]

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or the specific guidelines for pornographic actresses. Was deprodded by article creator. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:she had won 4 awards and pornographic actors does not have resources from the news websites because they dont want to destroy their reputation in public they have more information only in avn.com and other websites— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamheentity (talk • contribs) 15:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The award wins (Inked, BBW etc.) are minor and don't satisfy the well-known and significant industry award standard of WP:PORNBIO. The AVN coverage consists of obvious press releases and self promotion. Even with porn, the lack of reliable secondary sources tends to indicate a lack of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:BASIC without significant coverage from independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and I am not impressed by the awards. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources so that WP:Basic is not passed, thank you Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our absurdly broad inclusion criteria for pornographic performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness[edit]

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

queried speedy delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: Discussion here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete thanks for the ping. Nonprofit spam -- all the non=SYN links are from the organization; should not be mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be multiple mentions in assorted independent sources across the world in the last week. The article isnt very wonderful but the organisation appears to be notable.Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- So you added content based on two more very bad (SPS to yet other organizations) diff. argh. Jytdog (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPS? Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS. this larger set of edits added yet more crappy sources and did nothing to remove the pollution. Horrible editing that made the page worse. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is written like advertising copy, but the organisation does have enough coverage to satisfy notability. Atchom (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that is hand-waving and unhelpful. Please cite three truly independent sources with significant discussion of the organization. That is what we need per WP:NCORP. Right now, there are zero independent sources with significant discussion of the organization cited in this page. There is lots of SPS, some passing mentions, and some that don't mention the organization at all. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self published sources means what it says. Not sources published by other organisations. There are plenty of reports in newspapers about the activities of the organisation. It's clearly supported by the World Health Organization and has attracted support from significant people.Rathfelder (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources by collaborators, about the collaboration, are still SPS and are not independent and do nothing to show notability. I remain interested to see the "plenty of reports in newspapers" that have substantial discussion of the organization, You haven't cited any. What you are doing here is hand-waving, not bringing strong sources that show this passes WP:NCORP. And you have left all the spam in place. Terrible editing that has nothing to do with the mission of WP and is 100% promotional. Jytdog (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete A worthy organization, but the majority of sources are linked to the organization itself. Eveything else is just glancing mentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdle (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 19:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doğukan Yüce[edit]

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

This appears to be an amazingly laboured exercise in coasting on associated notability - 4 of the 5 refs are about Logan Paul, not this guy, and number 5 is about him acing an exam (hooray). Not notable in the slightest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now 5 out of 6 are about Logan. Ramping up there! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t see reason why the page should be deleted there is enough references from newspaper site Ziggy 2milli (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC) moved from talk page --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the coverage provided just doesn't actually cover the subject. The only source that goes into any depth at all is [12], and I'm uncertain if it can be considered a reliable source. It's a BLP1E where the single event is inviting Logan Paul to Turkey. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Paul is his guest. In the news text there is a lot of information about Doğukan Yüce because he is the president of Gençlik Eğitim ve Gelişim Organizasyonu. There was lots of text like "WHO İS MUSTAFA DOĞUKAN YÜCE?" All the refrences tells more about him(Ziggy 2milli (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The only article that I saw a "who is Dogukan Yüce" section in was the Haberler.com source which seemed to be of dubious reliability and also went into very minimal depth as far as who Yüce is, beyond mentioning that they are the president of Gençlik Eğitim ve Gelişim Organizasyonu. There needs to be more coverage to justify an article, and it needs to be in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not only haberler.com both IQ Haber also talked about him I don’t know why this page should be deleted. Try to consider the page please

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2018 (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) 16:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PWR Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

Pro Wrestling Revolution is not notable enough for their own page, their belt certainly isnt either. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet Philippine Wrestling Revolution is? - ldeffinbaugh (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (EST)
- Judging by that page, no its not, but more time would need to be spent seeing what sources are out there. But WP:OSE is not a reason to keep this one. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 01:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Im working with the owner on the company for more articles. But if you see from this sizzle reel it lists the various news sources that covered PWR as well as where it is broadcast on Television. They are widely bordcast across california. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEe9IszFEdQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR13ivYW1gTFApVu_2COURaGf2VQ7cvAqltA5org7cUs6PjuhkWATe8zoYI - ldeffinbaugh (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2018 (EST)
- Sounds to me like you just admitted to having an unreported WP:COI which could lead to you getting blocked. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds to me your over-reacting a bit. As you keep stating you need proper references and sources. So you reach out to the proper people and webmasters who get them. Many of the articles posted 10 + or - years ago are either removed or archived on main sites, not to mention Im sure youtube videos would be an issue since they would not point to the original source. So instead of spending many hours looking up old articles I found it easier to just ask the person directly. Its either that or cite from wrestling-titles, solies, or cagematch like a majority of articles and authors do. - ldeffinbaugh (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2018 (EST)
Delete I understand the difficulty in writing articles about older subjects where most of the sources are no longer extant but we really need to get some before articles are created. Consider taking this through the draft process to flesh things out before creating them here. Consult WP:GNG and WP:COI in the future. Also, please read WP:PW/RS, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:YOUTUBE in particular. Cagematch and other databases can be used in some circumstances but don't demonstrate notability. Verification generally requires more than just talking to someone involved with the subject. I'm willing to change my !vote but it would take solid sourcing.LM2000 (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you LM2000 for the information, its better than the approach of "WRONG" that seems to be how to start a discussion, I haven't done any articles since I started the AAA ones years ago, work keeps me rather busy. I have found most of the history from various wiki sites as well as from their main website, the NWA site used to have some but it has been taken down since the previous regime change, Besides PWRInsider and cagematch its rather hard to find hard sources beside independent coverage from local fans. The main site does reference coverage but finding the articles have not been easy, which is why I was hoping the promoter still had the links somewhere (thus the sizzle reel he sent) it shows live coverage and/or interviews but no links, not to mention waaaaay too many cut and paste duplicate sites with the same information. Mainly this belt was defended in NWA Pro, NWA Mexico, and Champion Wrestling from Hollywood. Im going to see if I can find more details from those three. But thank you again for the information - ldeffinbaugh (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2018 (EST)
  - Added some references from their main page - ldeffinbaugh (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2018 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 12:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. This belt was created only 10 years ago and has been awarded every couple of years or so since so we are not dealing with very old sources such as the turn of the century (20th) subjects. One would imagine that as the years progress the notability would grow and sources become easier to find, if we have to go back to its creation to ty and show notability this become problematic. There are 2 sources from the promotion so they can be discounted for notability purposes. There are some photos from the company that made the belt so affiliated and of no use, there is the OWW site that doesn't mention the subject so of no use, and there is a routine passing mention on PWInsider. Nothing here show notability. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already speedily deleted per G11 (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DataWalk[edit]

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines. References are not significant coverage, neither are the external links. noq (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability of product or/and company is not shown. -- Oisguad (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G11. What a massive advertisement: Words such as "honoured", "unique", listing customers and patents make up most of the article; All suggest a WP:COI or WP:PAID connection. Has already been deleted under the name Draft:DataWalk and (from memory) not much has changed since it was deleted there. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calez[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 15:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSINGER the sources are too weak to show he meets WP:GNG. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too lowgrade sources available [13], [14], to pass WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 15:30, 29 November 2018 (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) 16:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defari[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 15:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A biography by Jason Ankeny can be found: [15]. Allmusic also has a bylined review of his "Focused Daily". AllyD (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else that can help to establish notability? Flooded with them hundreds 14:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page 95 of Mickey Hess's "Is Hop Hop Dead?" discusses a recording by the subject: [16]; the same book also has a couple of passing mentions. This is far from my field, but taken together these sources seem to be tending towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BetDSI[edit]

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

Fails on WP:ORGCRITE. Passing mentions and routine coverage here and there. No in-depth significant coverage can be found. Not meeting WP:GNG. Hitro talk 15:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Betcris - not seeing the WP:SIGCOV needed to establish the notability of the subject; note this also implies the subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH as well. The issue here is that my BEFORE search turned up no coverage that actually notes anything of substance about the company, as most coverage concerning BetDSI is in regards to wacky online betting pools. A redirect to the parent company, Betcris, should also be considered. SamHolt6 (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are some mentions of the company, the coverage beyond that is minimal and the article thus does not meet WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2018 (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) 16:59, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarkah Al-Abdulla[edit]

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

non notable sports person. No real international performances and fails GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why "non notable sports person"? She's participant of Qatar national women's curling team on 2016 Pacific-Asia Curling Championships and 2016 Pacific-Asia Curling Championships. Her player record exists in database of World Curling Federation, because she played on international championships level. Also look at "What links here" on article page - she has redirects because her name writes variously. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To meet notability criteria she has to meet WP:GNG and she could be presumed notable if she meets the criteria for WP:NCURL which she doesn't i.e.

Have won a World Curling Tour event or participated in a Grand Slam of Curling event.
Have participated at the World Curling Championships or the World Mixed Doubles Curling Championship.
Have won a medal at one of the following World Curling Federation sanctioned events: the World Junior Curling Championships, World Senior Curling Championships, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Curling Championship or the Pacific-Asia Curling Championships.
Have participated in the Brier or the Tournament of Hearts.
Have won a medal at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships.
Have won the Canadian Mixed Curling Championship, Canadian Senior Curling Championship or Canadian Mixed Doubles Curling Trials.
Have participated in the Continental Cup of Curling, Canadian Olympic Curling Trials, TSN Skins Game or Canada Cup of Curling.
Is a member of the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame or the WCF Hall of Fame

This is what I mean by non notable. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria for curling. Lacks the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. The only reference is for winning a medal at a 3 team competition in Turkey. Papaursa (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arnej[edit]

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

No indication of notability other than some single releases on independent labels. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Flooded with them hundreds 12:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A dead reference and the only link is to his own website. Didn't chart anywhere so I concur with the nom. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Burghrecords[edit]

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

Non-notable label, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It was created by a SPA with conflict of interest. Flooded with them hundreds 09:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT. Record label run by the equally non-notable DJ Sonny – it produces more sound effects and software than songs or albums, so there's not even a discography to speak of, more a product list. No notability found in reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nasha Records[edit]

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

Non-notable label, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 15:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only one (self-published) source found. [17] One notable artist. (other blue link is to an unrelated movie). Seems to have some impact on Indian-influenced dance music, but there's not a strong enough demonstration of cultural notability to say it is of encyclopedic value. Fails GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Power[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ, fails WP:GNG and WP:DJ. Lack of significant coverage. Do not confuse this person for another musician of the same name who's a keyboardist for a band called The Corals. Flooded with them hundreds 16:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article, most of the ELs in the article are just to home pages of different radio stations. Nothing found in a before search (with the exception of the Corals ban member). Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2018 (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. Sandstein 21:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cris LaMuerte[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 16:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2018 (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) 17:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon plum[edit]

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

I've done my damnedest to find any reliable sources about this type of plum, and I haven't been able to find anything substantive and reliable, no matter what I add to the search. The lengthiest source I found was The Six Pillars of Holistic Nutrition, which I wouldn't consider an exceptionally reliable source. There's also a scant paragraph in this local-interest article about fruit to try. Everything else is basically name-drops on lists.

I tried to look under "Inca plum", because the article suggests they might be one and the same, but again I mostly found list entries and commercial websites. The Inca plum exists on the Slow Food Ark of Taste, but doesn't say anything about also being called the lemon plum, so I can't assume they're one and the same.

Ultimately, even if they are, we have a) an entry in a book about holistic nutrition, b) a scant paragraph in a local-interest story, and c) a single-paragraph entry in a database that we can't even be sure is about the same fruit.

It's not enough for an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this is suspiciously hard to find. I.e., nothing at all on Scholar, one apparent and a few possible-verging-on-doutbful mentions in books. If there was a scientific name to go with the plant that would help (actually it would suffice as a notable topic on its own), but I can't find anything like that. Too little coverage to sustain an article. Add: and both references given in the article are worthless/inapplicable :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this source [18] and quite a lot of photo sources that gives it a PLU code of 4441 and 4442 according to the size. I don't know if this is enough to suggest that it should pass notability. This seems to have nothing to do with the 2 plants mentioned at Yellow plum though. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; sketchy as it is, best source so far. Why don't these people note their data sources, argh |p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Found a couple more sources, starting with image searches. These are both from commercial fruit sellers, but at least show the beast is around and confirm some of the info: [19][20] I dunno... getting there? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources right now to sustain an article. Should more reliable sources appear in the future, the article could of course be recreated. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2018 (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 Shout! Factory. Any content worth merging is available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shout Select[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. No evidence of notability. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 14:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section in Shout! Factory — after looking at the article and the weak support in reliable sources, I think this article should be reduced down to a paragraph in the parent organization's article. Those releases that are supported by reliable non-self-published sources could be retained in either that section or placed into a list article which concatenates releases across all of Shout! Factory's units. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge as per the arguments by User:Ceyockey. Dom from Paris (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2018 (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) 17:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Santeramo[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. 1l2l3k (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete WP:TOOSOON. Looks to be on a good track but not yet at the level that I would expect for a pass of WP:PROF (RePEc top-25%-in-Italy ranking notwithstanding — I think this is evidence more that economists in Italy are not as strong as they might be than that he is a top researcher.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage of him in secondary sources, all the references are either to his contact pages or his publications.Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:32, 30 November 2018 (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. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Carr (pianist)[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.181.200 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note Request AfD in WT:AFD, I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His CDs are self-produced, and of the sources he is reviewed in, it seems that only one is listed in Wikipedia, and even then he is not in their Top 10 list of albums. The New Age Voice's Top 100 and Zone Music Reporter's radio charts are certainly not national music charts, nor are there links to check that he was actually on them. Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes at least criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC and therefore WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources such as this reasonably long biography at AllMusic here as well as professional Allmusic critics reviews of three of his albums and he also has reliable sources book coverage as already referenced on the article, and there is probably more as I haven't dine a full search Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The two books by Howard Mancing referenced in the article give Mr. Carr literally no more than a passing mention within a list of all the musical works Mr. Mancing has found which mention Don Quixote. That seems to leave the AllMusic reviews as the only reliable source found so far, and WP:NMUSIC requires multiple different sources, not just one. I must say that the AllMusic reviews of Mr. Carr's works aren't very well written, well below the usual standard of AllMusic journalists. Richard3120 (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage of this artist. Self published CDs that haven't made any significant charts. 99.203.16.127 (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous edit was only the third edit by that ip. Allmusic has significant coverage in the bio linked above and 3 reviews, will supply more coverage tomorrow, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- 51 monthly listeners. Please note that this "artist" has 51 monthly listeners on Spotify. Not 51,000. Not even 5,100. 51. And I can see no data for this artist on Pandora. The non-notability of this artist doesn't even seem up for debate. 173.13.199.153 (talk) 11:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotify and Pandora are not reliable sources and cater predominantly to more youth oriented artists. Ihavent finished sourcesearching so can this AFD please continue, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

- - Stating that Pandora and Spotify cater to youth-oriented artists is irrelevant and misguided. If Richard Carr is a contemporary of people like David Nevue or Michele McLaughlin, why do they have 60k+ listeners when he has literally 51. Yes, listener-counts can be relevant. You keep sourcesearching, but there's nothing to find. AllMusic isn't a reliable source.
  - I cannot believe this is even up for discussion. Is Richard Carr notable _as a musician_? Clearly not. He created an album about Quixote that received a passing mention in one publication, and somehow you think this makes him worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. He's won zero awards and doesn't meet music inclusion guidelines with his self-published albums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:CA00:159:2BB9:62C4:274A:9A8B:CCFC (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allmusic is a very reliable source, see this list of music reliable sources in which it is included Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any suitable sources, and I can't see any way this article could be written to be not basically promotional. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are the problem but I don't see why it couldn't be rewritten using the long Allmusic bio but more sources are needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lati K[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:MBIO. Lack of significant coverage. Flooded with them hundreds 10:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources outside of social media and music apps. Doesn't pass any notability requirements for anything, and it doesn't seem like Norwegian Talents is a notable TV show either.Awsomaw (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, not covered by the media. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a rising star and is soon to be in the headlines, she just started early this year and is already making an impact on social media. Sidetosice (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent secondary sources showing notability. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails any ounce of notability. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Sobczyński[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. I can find this and this, but how reliable or important these sources are is unclear (bliskopolski seems to be a "patriotic poland" attempt at an encyclopedia, but without any indication of expertise, fact-checking, ...; artinfo is a commercial database with bios of more than 20,000 artists, which can be provided by anyone by email). He is not, as far as I can tell, included in any books on art, doesn't feature at major auctions, there is no news about him. There don't seem to be any mentions of him before the Wikipedia articles were created, which raises some red flags about whether he truly existed even. In any case, the artist doesn't seem to be notable enough to be included here. Fram (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has painted his pictures.Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jan_Sobczyński#Painter's_family_opinion Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER for his WWII service. Seems to have been created (un-sourced) around the time of his death by a SPA (which per the permissions on the file uploads in commons seems possibly connected to the subject). I don't see the WP:SIGCOV here to meet GNG (or NARTIST). Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article contains no sources, and I did not find anything in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Novie Edwards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot tell if this page is any better than the one which was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novie Edwards, so IDK if it meets WP:G4, which would simplify matters. Bit-part actress, no notable roles; fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although her list of credits is growing, there is no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. PK T(alk) 17:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of enough reliable sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zofeen Ebrahim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm renomintating it for deletion after discussing with the closing admin who closed this AfD earlier today "as no consensus".

Journalists are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia unless they either pass WP:JOURNALIST or basic GNG. This promotional BLP fails at both end.. This BLP used to cite sources [21] which are work written by the subject herself. The BLP currently cites three sources - organisations where the subject works ( sources too closely associated with the subject) so I don't think they can be used to establish the notability. None of the award is major or notable - at least by WP standards. Saqib (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.∯WBG^converse 08:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Masilamony[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search turned up his LinkedIn profile and his ZoomInfo profile, and that was about it. The only citation in the article which is specifically about him is a non-WP:RS interview (1). The fact that almost everything in his filmography is redlinked is not encouraging. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NBIO. Narky Blert (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the subject should be notable with the number of production credits they potentially have, but I cannot find anything like the required level of independent reliable sources required for GNG or NSUBJECT. If the credits could be reliably referenced I could probably be convinced to change to keep. Aoziwe (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2018 (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 08:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Pratt[edit]

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

Notable things that this person did are: 1)documented the status of the first wessagusset settlement. He was one of the first settlers in US, but is NOT in the first batch of settlers that arrived in the ship Mayflower. Other than that, I dont find anything notable. His works should belong as a reference in the Wessagusset settlement page, I don't think he needs a standalone article. Daiyusha (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Phineas Pratt is a significant actor in the history of the Wessagusett and Plimoth settlements (he joined Plimoth in 1623 when there were only 32 homes) and both his first-hand account and his later petition/will are of note. Also notable in that he warned Plimoth colony of a potential oncoming attack and was a catalyst for Standish's advance on the Sachems of Wessagusset as well as leaving one of the few extant participant accounts of the time. He has a dedicated page and two PDFs on the http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/ site, his account is included on Mayflowerhistory.com http://mayflowerhistory.com/primary-sources-and-books/ and http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/phineas_pratt.htm and he has a page on Plimoth.org https://www.plimoth.org/sites/default/files/media/pdf/pratt_phineas.pdf as well as the Winthrop Society pages. https://www.winthropsociety.com/doc_pratt.php. He is also included prominently in many books in addition to the monograph on him and his descendants: 1)Robert C. Anderson. The Pilgrim Migration. Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2004. 2) George Bowman. “Phineas Pratt of Charlestown.” Mayflower Descendant 4(3): 129–140. 1902. 3) Jayne P. Lovelace. The Pratt Directory. Rev. ed. Chandler, Ariz.: Ancestor House, 1995. 4)Robert S. Wakefield, ed. Plymouth: General Society of Mayflower Descendants, 1994., 5) Eugene A. Stratton. Plymouth Colony: Its History and People, 1620–1691. Salt Lake City:Ancestry Publishing, 1986. and 6) Levermore, C. H. 1856-1927. (1912). Forerunners and competitors of the Pilgrims and Puritans. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Pub. for the Society. Darcyjae ( talk) 8:45 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Prominently mentioned at length in several sources, such as pages 49-50 of The Genealogical Magazine, published in 1902, A Declaration of the Affairs of the English People that First Inhabited New England, published in 1858; the monograph about him and his descendents already in the article; The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, Volumes 28-29 (see here); the The Macdonough-Hackstaff ancestry, and A Weymouth Story. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cabayi (talk) 09:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and WP:RS is demonstrated just by the page on the Pilgrim Hall Museum website, alone. We're talking about someone living over 300 years ago, not some modern-day minor TV or sports personality, so easily written about by today's online newspapers. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In my opinion, it is the usual rule that someone who lived in the nineteenth or earlier century about whom there are reliable written records is notable, and this person is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keith Henson (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a clear pass of WP:GNG -- good references for such a unique time period. WOW, great job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Yvonne[edit]

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

Fails to meet entertainer notability requirements WP:NACTOR. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Out of the 3 references in the article one is a link to the homepage of a family heritage site, one is the homepage of a film festival which doesn't appear to mention her at all and the other is to her resume. Greyjoy^talk 05:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Fiji-Tonga earthquake[edit]

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

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

Low intensity (this event was felt only)
No injuries, deaths, or damage
Not of interest in the scientific community

This USGS entry for the event tells part of the story:

M 7.8 - south of the Fiji Islands – United States Geological Survey Dawnseeker2000 04:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite it's magnitude, this earthquake shows no signs of enduring notability. The lack of scientific papers is particularly telling. Mikenorton (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ajuran-Portuguese conflict[edit]

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

this is a content fork from the Battle of Barawa article and the Ajuran_Sultanate article. It adds nothing new and should be deleted. JC7V (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. It's just the resurrection of old edits in Battle of Barawa and Battle of Benadir that have since been corrected. Wareno (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; while arguably we could have an article on the war (if there were better sources), there's nothing here that would be lost if this page is deleted. The title is completely unknown to Google Books, so not a likely search term and not a useful redirect target. The POV-pushing of course doesn't help. Huon (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Juan-Pablo Amado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable tennis player. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he still fails WP:NTENNIS 7 years after the previous AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 10:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Algerian Air Force C-295 crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable military aviation accident. Military crashes are quite common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:56, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As part of WP:BEFORE, you are supposed to tell us how the five sources in the article make it not notable... Also [22][23][24][25][26] make it pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That’s easily answered; the references in the article consist of contemporary news reports and an entry in a comprehensive aircraft crash database, while the extra sources above consist of more contemporary news reports and a blog. No lasting significance concerning this event has been demonstrated, just the usual blip of reportage that might have got two sentences on Page 11 of a newspaper in the pre-internet days. Documenting that the crash took place on multiple websites carrying the same news report without any further discussion does not make the event itself notable, so Delete. YSSYguy (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per YSSYguy. WP:AIRCRASH is only an essay, but it seems to be the de facto deletion guideline. Military crashes have a higher standard than civilian ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. AIRCRASH is often wrong about military crashes of this magnitude - military transport crashes are actually quite often notable - though 6 not very notable fatalities is borderline. However, this particular 6 fatality crash received coverage mainly around the event (and that's all the sourcing in the article). Comte0 in his collection of links above provides 1 source on an investigation from 2013 - the rest are 2012. My BEFORE shows mainly 2012, as well as very brief blurb mentions in the context of 2018 Algerian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 crash (as a previous Algerian military crash). Thus, what is lacking here is in-depth WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2018 (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.