Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 April	14 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Buggy (Space: 1999)[edit]

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

Pure WP:FANCRUFT material. Minor vehicle in a tv series from a few decades ago. Fine material for a fan wiki, but not here. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is very badly sourced fancruft. It isn't suitable for an article and has no content that would be of any use merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 13:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, poorly sourced, non notable DrewieStewie (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Swerling[edit]

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

Is this person notable by our standards? Some mentions in the news, several mentions in books – he was somebody's lawyer in a number of cases. However his principal claim to fame seems to be getting held up by a disgruntled client, and that – while surely unpleasant – is not of any encyclopaedic interest or importance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Marathi[edit]

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

Borderline A7, but there are some (weak) claims to significance, so it's just as well to take it to AfD. No claim to notability, all sources are primary or trivial mentions, and the founder is Akshay Bardapurkar, about whom see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amitbhb12/Archive - multiple hoax articles were created about him a couple of years ago. The website apparently exists but the exaggerated claims can't be trusted given that there are no secondary sources that do more than mention it. It's not unlikely that the creator is another sock, but I can't say that for certain. bonadea contributions talk 22:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Pavy[edit]

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

Per WP:JUDGE. Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His main claim to notability appears to be that his son-in-law shot Huey Long, and that isn't nearly enough to meet GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Toph Beifong. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Flower[edit]

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

May not pass WP:NACTOR. Has a ton of notability tag on the article that remains unresolved. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toph Beifong, her only main role so far, unless any justification to keep is put forward. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is WP:GNG the article needs sourcing and work which can be done. The fact is the subject is notable and the afd is not warranted. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lubbad85, then add the sources. I can't find any and as said above Toph is her only main role. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not interested in doing the work. But I can see the subject is notable. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lubbad85, then we can draftify it until someone comes along that is willing to fix it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment I stick to my vote of "keep". WP:NOTCLEANUP and I do not think it is WP:TOOSOON I do not oppose draft...my opinion is that the subject is notable Lubbad85 (☎) 12:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Move to Draft after a brief search I agree with the nom WP:TOOSOON Lubbad85 (☎) 12:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. She fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. If she becomes notable, a redirect can be reversed. Poorly sourced BLPs of non-notable people are not good. wumbolo ^^^ 19:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo, redirect to Toph or draftify? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toph. wumbolo ^^^ 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transcend Media Group[edit]

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

Non notable company. Probably fails WP:NCORP, sources are simply announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. I could only find routine coverage and passing mentions in the news. wumbolo ^^^ 19:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J.Derobie[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up and coming artist who has released one song. The only claim to notability is his affiliation to Mr Eazi's venture Empawa Africa, a non-notable platform. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J.Derobie has had significant coverage from relevant news sources aside his affiliation with Mr Eazi he has also been nominated for Vodafone Ghana Music Awards a prestigious Ghanaian music awards scheme. Which passes off as a notability criteria.Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rodeway Inn. This is a Snow closure... I'm ending this prior to the 7 days per SNOW. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeway Inn and Suites[edit]

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

Non-notable individual hotel. Do we need an article on every Rodeway Inn location? This seems like a run of the mill hotel. Nothing significant about this warrants its own page. Tinton5 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect—this does seem to be written about a single hotel instead of the franchise. As this article was originally created for the single hotel, there is not a version to revert to which concerns the franchise as a whole. I'd suggest that this be converted to a redirect to Choice Hotels#Brands, and that list should be verified for the name of the franchise, currently listed as only "Roadway Inn", not "Roadway Inn and Suites". If there was something special, historic or notable about this particular building or franchisee, then it would be OK to keep, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rodeway Inn, the main article about this brand. The title implies that the article is about the hotel brand, not one particular location, and the particular location doesn't appear notable enough to justify having an article of its own in this encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:BRANCH Graywalls (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rodeway Inn, as explained above - it's an alternative name for one/some of the hotels that is not individually notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above redirect to Rodeway Inn, Alex-h (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus on the redirect suggested by User:Mr. Smart LION, so I won't implement it, but if somebody else wants to create it, they can do so on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoot Police[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. ∯WBG^converse 16:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NFILM. Etc. ——SerialNumber54129 17:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason not to follow the film notability guideline. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saif Ali Khan#Commercial setbacks and Sacred Games (2016–present). Redirect would be the best option as the film is definitely going to happen. There are various reliable sources confirming film’s announcement and shooting to begin in August 2019. When filming begins, it can be simply restored. Mr. Smart LION 04:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm quite concerned about the edits made to the article by the nominator, as mentioned by Bonadea. This is an obvious keep, and I'm going to follow up with an SPI report. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 01:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Markaz[edit]

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

Non notable cultural center, created by an user related to the organization, Alyssalevantinecenter, also read Alyssa Levantine Center. MalayaliWoman (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nomination was clearly in bad faith. It is more than a little troubling that the nominating editor first disrupted the article by removing references to its name change and adding a website that is unrelated to the organisation; if that had in fact been the centre's official website, it would have had no claim to notability, but there is no sign that it has anything to do with it. This is exactly the same behaviour displayed by a group of sock puppets that tried to remove all mention of organisations called "Markaz" from Wikipedia a few years ago, except for one, in order to make it look as if that was the only "Markaz" in the world. --bonadea contributions talk 09:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple of independent references and some more information to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources independent references have been added to the article that show that the subject passes WP:GNG and should be kept. Regarding the disruptive nominator suggest SPI Atlantic306 (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Qazi[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has been relisted twice and while, granted, there's more keep !votes than there are delete !votes, a consensus hasn't been established in my opinion ... There's a lot of protest over the sourcing (primarily an article) and whether they meet GNG. I appreciate everyone remaining civil and understandably this is a passionate subject. With this conversation being rather in depth, and contentious, there's no prejudice over a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Jefferson, North Carolina)[edit]

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

Generic local congregation, no substantive third-party sources to assert notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable local congregation by appearnces. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOFEAT guidelines. It seems to a be historical architecture and the fact that there is little references on it should not be reason for delete, as this place is built in 1899 so there won't be much recent news on it. ~Leny Tee55~ 07:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply being old does not guarantee notability. Little reference is exactly why it should be deleted. Actual historical architecture, rather than any old building, would have independent sources on it.
Keep per above. While the Catholic congregation itself is not notable, the building is a historic one for the area. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well are there any notable sources establishing notability for the building, like a listing on a historic register? Still fails GNG and WP:NCHURCH. Reywas92^Talk 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb for editors considering nomination churches for deletion: American churches that are a century old or that are or were large can almost always be sourced. Let's test that assertion with this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep Coverage is right where you would expect it to be, in reliable newspapers and in the guide to historic architecture in the region published by the state university press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's statement above. The sources added indicate historical notability. I think it passes WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I'm concerned, local historical significance doesn't automatically equate to GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete People simply are not reading the article carefully. This is an article about a parish, not a building, which by the way the parish hasn't occupied in some years anyway. The narrative is routine: Catholic parish starts in the 1960s, taking over existing building which happens (possibly) to be historic; eventually it outgrows it (as is commonplace for Catholic parishes) and they build a new church. there is no real notability in any of this, and the sources about the parish reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, I see no reasons to conclude that editors are unaware that this congregation moved into an historic building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a book source, there are newspaper sources, there is the site of the congregation itself as source for statements about itself. Clearly meets GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as extra content and references showing significant coverage in reliable sources have been added so there is no valid reason for deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added Navbox for Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh since St.Francis is a member parish; added See also section. Article improvements to better integrate into Wikipedia. JoeHebda (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changed to Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, as St. Francis is in the Western diocese. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RANT Could people please look at this a bit before commenting??? The book reference is not about the parish; it's about a building they no longer occupy and which was built for someone else. The coverage is routine for a local church. I actually bothered to look at both buildings, the old and the current: the former now houses some independent Baptists, and the latter is a typical small modern church. There is no notability here; it's just another minor Catholic parish. Mangoe (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book documents that this congregation purchased and occupied for over half a century a church building erected by a different denomination in 1899. Details about the congregation's history, including the buildings it has occupied, are reliably sourced. Notability by no means depends on the historic building, but it is part of the history of the congregation and contributes its mite to the notability of the parish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. Catholic parishes started in the 1960s are a dime a gross, not merely a dozen. Starting out in someone else's old building is not especially odd, and it didn't achieve notice outside the locality. If the building is historic, then write an article on the building, but the parish is just another Catholic parish. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in a university press book doesn't "contribute its mite to the notability of the parish"? - seriously?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I am unable to read the page in question without getting my hands on a physical copy, probing with GBooks seems to say that the parish isn't mentioned at all, and the building gets no more than a very brief listing and not a "discussion". From what I can see, the material in the guide is not enough to write an article on anything it lists, but again (and it is really beginning to irritate me the number of times I'm having to repeat this) this isn't an article about the building, and the parish hasn't occupied it for years, in any case. Notability is not inherited by formerly residing in a (minimally) historic building. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here: is the snippet from the book that I found online" "Across the street the former Jefferson Presbyterian Church (now St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church) (ca. 1900; sw corner of Main and Ivey Sts.) is a shingled Gothic Revival church with corner bell- tower. Nearby the little William B. Austin ..." But the article hardly relies on that alone, there is a good deal of detail in the newspaper articles about the history of the church and its buildings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

they no longer occupy is a canard repeated above more than once. This is an unencyclopaedic argument. Entries do not get deleted from Wikipedia because they no longer are, or because they no longer are there, or because they moved. Albert Einstein is no longer; we still have an entry for him. Berlin's airport Johannisthal Air Field is no longer there at all, but we still have an entry for it. London's main airport moved from Hounslow Aerodrome to Croydon Aerodrome on 28 March 1920, but we still have an entry for Hounslow Aerodrome.

Policy requires the WP:GNG to be met, which it is here through material such as book citations, journal citations, etc.; arguments ad tempores which have no basis on Wikipedia policies have no place on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is not a canard that they no longer occupy the building, because it is true that they do not. I have repeated that point because, other than the kind of local media coverage that is typical of any congregation which erects a new building, this is the only claim to notability. But the fact that the parish vacated it and presumably passed it along to the Baptists who now use it emphasizes that the building and the parish are not the same thing, and that an article which isn't about the building is not justified by that former residence. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete since there doesn't seem to be a good merger target. "St. Francis of Rome Catholic Church in Sparta, North Carolina is a mission of St. Francis of Assisi Church", per WP:BRANCH. If the building is notable, then the page should be made about the building, then the church, which moved into it in 1960 be added as a section. Notability does not transfer to the new owner or new tenant from simply becoming the new owner or an occupant of a presumably notable building per WP:INHERITORG. It's described as the only catholic church in that city. Given that it's a city with a 2010 population of 1,611, and declining, this doesn't add to notability. Graywalls (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for keeping, however, does not depend on the historic buildign the church worshipped in for half a century. The argument is that while the article was at AfD, substantive coverage of the founding and history and activities of the congregation were found and added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has literally been listed here at AFD for nearly a month and we're still split as far as consensus goes. No issues with speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farley's Eatery and Pub[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Single-location defunct restaurant. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. Article does say that an actor died there, and it was mentioned in one episode of a TV show. Neither is significant enough to establish notability. MB 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added evidence of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local coverage of a place with local importance. There are tens of thousands of restaurants that we could write this kind of article for, but that’s too low a threshold of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Problem with this article is, it does not becomes automatically notable because it is associated with notable ones WP:INHERITORG QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AP source provides a good detailed history of the place, the other sources demonstrate notability per WP:GNG and there are lots more to find, owing to its appearance as a location in The Office. Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and QEF. ∯WBG^converse 14:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and WP:GNG not overly promotional. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Kuhnhausen[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E. A loose necktie (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this garbage. Wikipedia is not a news site. Trillfendi (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not know if I am allowed to vote, since I made the article - I just wanted to have the opportunity to provide a reason why I think this is not a news article and that it should be allowed as a short (maybe shortened beyond what it is currently) encyclopedia entry. If I am speaking in the wrong place on this, please let me know and I can remove the "vote". This person should have an encyclopedia entry of at least minimal length because the event has inspired not just news articles, but discussion beyond that. If you search "Susan Kuhnhausen" on google, you get at least 16,400 results (as of today). Anyone who browses through the results will see not just news articles, but commentary, reflections, fictitious stories based on the events, discussions of popular murders, and blog posts related to the subject. By the amount of coverage the subject has received, I feel that it is WP:Notable and should have at least a minimal entry. Maybe the current entry is too long and could be shortened, but I think a record is merited. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I would like to address the four criteria outlined under Wikipedia is not a newspaper:

(1): Original reporting. There is no original reporting in the article; it cites to other sources that have reported information.

(2): News reports. Newsworthy events DO NOT qualify for a Wiki article. This is NOT a merely newsworthy event, as it has received enduring popularity in social media as an interesting crime and has inspired a great deal of discussion beyond the original event.

(3): Who's who: Not sure how to respond - maybe it should be transformed from an article about the individual to an article about the event? Would appreciate commentary on this.

(4): A diary: Doesn't seem relevant as only the relevant event is mentioned.

Can I ask that people comment on this analysis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikjbagl (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Attempted murder of Susan Kuhnhausen" or something similar. I agree with Ikjbagl that Kuhnhausen's story is one of enduring popularity and is well-known to people interested in true crime. Looking at articles for other notable murder or attempted murder victims (Murder of Laci Peterson, Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Aruna Shanbaug case), the standard seems to be an article about the case or crime itself, with redirects from the name of the victim. --Nonmodernist (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion- I will move the page and add a redirect. Ikjbagl (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Creator's argument on why this is beyond BLP1E is not without merit - however, do we treat this potential additional material (which would require secondary sources) as equivalent to AfD source-hunting (where sources just need to exist somewhere, not actually be in the article) or does this article actually need to be expanded beyond the base crime with this extra content before this argument would be legitimate? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I came across this article in the AfD list, I see the creator tried to set it up as a biography however that doesn't seem to work here, this is more about a crime taking place and there is a lot of that. As a singular incident I don't see enough of a impact for an article here, I wouldn't pass per WP:BLPCRIME. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTStarcom CDM1450[edit]

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

We don’t have individual articles for any other UTStarcom handsets and there does not seem to be anything notable about this one. Mccapra (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of citations available via google. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I would recommend redirect to UTStarcom, but for the fact that that article does not mention any individual handsets. On the other hand, if one wanted to have handsets mentioned in that article, albeit sourced from independent sources rather than self-published materials, there'd be nothing wrong with that. This particular handset does not appear to be notable on its own. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable secondary sources here, and not even a claim of significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LION (Band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Internet search results turn up almost nothing. Few references. See WP:NOTYET. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: maybe it's WP:TOOSOON, but there are definitely mentions in reliable sources, in Music Week [1] and The Independent [2], as well as a local newspaper The News [3]. Possibly not enough for an article, though. Richard3120 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to the above, there's also [4], [5], [6], and a lot of 'LION has a new single/EP out' type articles: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 08:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep .

~~https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/03db14f0-7f90-48bd-96e3-e81303c91686~~

~~https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/new-pink-gwen-stefani-christina-aguilera-songs-to-appear-on-compilation-201365/~~

~~https://variety.com/2017/music/news/pink-pat-benatar-gwen-stefani-compilation-album-linda-perry-label-1202551991/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.65.9 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Only one i-vote per editor. Same references are in the longer list by the same SPA editor is listed below

Delete. WP:TOO SOON. The references with the article are junk, but other editors have turned up examples of the standard new release press in RS that are indicative of a promotional push to establish this artist. Other sources in the same promotional vein are minor or non-reliable. Judging by the obvious effort to break this artist, I expect even more to turn up, but unless they differ from the “hot new artist” hyperbole promoting releases and appearances they don’t add up to much beyond press for the sake of press . I know it’s not criteria, but her social media following—-6,804 on FB, Twitter, instagram combined—is meager and just another indication that her actual notability is something less than the hype. The Rolling Stone and Variety links show her to be, under her real name, one of several contributors (comprising notables and non-notables) to a fund-raising soundtrack album, but certainly it is the presence of Pat Benatar, Gwen Stefani, et. al, rather than this subject, that accounts for this coverage. Still, having a release (although only one) on a small but decent label, plus being featured on BBC1 “introducing” is indicative of an emerging artists headed in the right direction, so consider this a "weak delete" if you like. But I don’t think she’s accomplished encyclopedic importance yet, hence the TOOSOON.ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant independent reliable sources coverage as identified by Michig such as Variety, Rolling Stone and the BBC. Certainly an emerging artist but one with this coverage is notable and should be included in the Encyclopedia, social media is not a reliable indicator and the fact that likes and views have not been bought artificially shows that this is not so much of a publicity drive as is being suggested Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They obviously don’t have notability at this time. Definitely Too Soon. Trillfendi (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per shelby and trill. Nothing much to say after what they have said. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage, just routine mentions and directory-style listings. For example, the BBC source found by Michig isn't WP:SIGCOV, it's just a couple of routine sentences describing an artist in a playlist. Other sources noted above by various discussants are similarly not useful for establishing WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

R1 Jack Saunders (1h, 5min, 10sec) : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0004156

6Music `Steve Lamacq Recommends’ (37min,10 sec) : https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0003zm8

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/770ca820-1971-4b15-9b50-096d73f725a7#more Last Played on BBC

+

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/03db14f0-7f90-48bd-96e3-e81303c91686

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/new-pink-gwen-stefani-christina-aguilera-songs-to-appear-on-compilation-201365/

https://variety.com/2017/music/news/pink-pat-benatar-gwen-stefani-compilation-album-linda-perry-label-1202551991/

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/lion-singer-beth-lowen-music-box-sessions-tour-dates-album-a8584466.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.65.9 (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON, move the article to a draft to be expanded and posted again at a later time, if the creator is interested. Of the sources named above, only the Independent and Lock Magazine articles are hefty enough to help prove WP:GNG. The others look negligible, in some cases only show announcements. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the sources and other comments here, I'm persuaded by the "too soon" arguments. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional and not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 12:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus for deletion. Debate has gone on more than long enough. Mjroots (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bugatti La Voiture Noire[edit]

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

The information about this car is already included in the Bugatti Chiron page which is enough. It does not need a separate article because it is based on the Chiron and uses the same drivetrain. Further, information about one-offs should be included in the article of the automobile they are based on. Such as information about the Lamborghini Aventador J and Ferrari 458 MM Speciale are included in the Lamborghini Aventador and Ferrari 458 articles.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Such as information about the Lamborghini Aventador J and Ferrari 458 MM Speciale are included in the Lamborghini Aventador and Ferrari 458 articles is the prime example for the keep. What the OP has described is the variations of the said models, the Voiture Noire is a different model of car to the Chiron, it may share its drivetrain and floor pan abut that would probably be it. Think of it as merging Peugeot Partner with Peugeot 308, as an example. Same mechanicals, different body. Two different vehicles, not worth merging at all. Nightfury 08:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you do realize that what you want to do does not require you to go through the AFD process? You can just redirect the page. I do not support that, but you can do it. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The 458 MM speciale has a different body than that of the 458 and yet it has a mention in the Ferrari 458 page because writing a whole article on a one off won't be suitable at all. The MM Speciale is not a variation of the 458, it's a one-off with a different body just like the La Voiture Noire. Same goes for the SP38 Deborah whose mention is included in the Ferrari 488 page along with the Pininfarina bodied Jaguar XJ220 which also has a mention in the aforementioned page. There are many more examples on WP about such one-off models which don't need a separate article. We should include quality material here, not stub-class articles about cars whose mention in the page of the automobile on which they are based on is fair enough. Even the information about special Pagani models are included in the main page of Pagani Zonda, such as the Zonda Revolucion. It has a different body than a regular Zonda and is expensive but it does not have a separate article. @Toasted Meter: why should a redirect be created when the article is not even necessary?U¹ _quattro TALK 10:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you have not explained why you are using AFD to advance this position. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, It is written above. The car doesn't need a separate stub-class article when it's detailed mention in the Bugatti Chiron page is enough.U¹ _quattro TALK 01:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes but if you redirect it editors could use [[Bugatti La Voiture Noire]] to link to the correct section of the Chiron page, instead of using a piped link. There is no disadvantage to making a redirect. I do not support this, however this should not be an AFD discuson, it should be a merge discussion. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why should it be a merge discussion when there is no reason for the existence of such a stub-class article? A redirect should be made but it should be done after this page is deleted.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you want an administrator to delete the page so you can recreate it as a redirect? Do you not see how much of a waste of time that is for all involved? Toasted Meter (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creating a redirect was your idea to avoid pipe links, not mine, which is useless considering pipe links don't take much time to create either. I gave my reasons for deleting the page.U¹ _quattro TALK 19:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bugatti Chiron. --Sable232 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bugatti Chiron as not notable enough for a standalone article, also Bugatti Chiron article has enough information on this one-off so no need to "merge" (need to allow for WP:BALANCE ie. an article about a model of 500 cars versus a one-off). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is more than enough information about this car to warrant its own article. Syntaxlord (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Syntaxlord: no it doesn't. Its a poorly executed stub class article which only has information copied from the main article of the Bugatti Chiron. Further, this car is a one-off, not a series production car so it's mention in the Chiron's page is more than enough as it is based on it. Such stub class articles only erode the quality of material available on Wikipedia.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @U1Quattro there are 4004 stub-class articles according to the WP:Automobiles page. Out of these, only 5 are marked as being of high importance. Why is it necessary that this article in particular be deleted? Unlike most stub-class articles, this is highly informative. Syntaxlord (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Syntaxlord: like I said, these articles ruin the relevance of wikipedia. This is no exception. When the Bugatti Chiron contains what reader needs to know about the one-off which is based on it, why create a separate article on that which contains basically nothing but the same information pasted on from there? This is not being informative.U¹ _quattro TALK 04:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments, but actually very few firm !votes...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: There are plenty of information about the car in google and easily satisfy WP:V, WP:RS (link--[13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], etc). The article definitely satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NVEHICLES.--PATH SLOPU 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI think enough information to warrant an article. WP:GNG, WP:NVEHICLES. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Path slopu you're talking about Google, not Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, it is a stub class article. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.U¹ _quattro TALK 11:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:U1Quattro I am unsure who you are insulting in the above comment after my vote. I think it is best if you allow the afd voting and discussion to proceed without arguing or insulting the voters. In my opinion you are WP:TENDENTIOUS Lubbad85 (☎) 17:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not insulting anyone Lubbad85 but if one doesn't have the basic knowledge about the differentiation between information on Google and a Wikipedia article, they shouldn't bother to vote.U¹ _quattro TALK 17:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No clear solution rises above the rest here: 1) deleting the article; 2) merging to List of bus routes in London; 3) keeping it as is; 4) moving the article to Night buses in London and changing its focus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of night buses in London[edit]

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

A list of bus routes is already covered in List of bus routes in London and night buses in general can be covered in Buses in London. This article goes beyond the content in the general bus route list article by providing detailed route designations for every route (WP:NOTTRAVEL) and a few random facts about changing bus operators for some. If the routes are notable they should have their own articles, else the list is perfectly fine in List of bus routes in London. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:OR Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim the route lists. Several of the entries contain encyclopaedic histories that should be added to the other routes where sources for this exist. The solution to lists like this to improve them not delete them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/marge Redundant to List of bus routes in London, does not need a separate article with such detail. Reywas92^Talk 20:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of scope to expand with third party sources. 11Expo (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A "List of Night buses in Podunk, Iowa, USA" is not needed or useful, but London is different. The one in France or wherever, not this one. :) --Doncram (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is an argument for merger, not deletion, and simply repeats what was said in the previous unsuccessful nomination. The topic is notable because it's easy to find an multi-volume book about it – London's Night Buses – and so it passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The ideal course of action is to delete because this duplicates a lot of content already covered in other articles, or to redirect to an article most appropriate. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It normally requires more than a single highly specialised book on a subject to establish notability. Specific coverage in mainstream publications is needed.Charles (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A book which is specifically about the topic is the best evidence of notability – demonstrating that there is plenty to be said about the topic and that there are people willing to publish and read it. There's plenty of more general works which cover the topic too, e.g. The Guardian. Andrew D. (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"else the list is perfectly fine in List of bus routes in London." - from nominator's opening remarks, so are we here for deletion or merge/redirect (covered by closing admin of previous afd)? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This would be better as an article, Night buses in London. Peter James (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the article existed as "Night buses in London", but was moved in 2009 to "List of night buses in London". We don't need two articles for the topic and the list of examples, I assume. The exact title doesn't matter for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of sections from N1 to N551 should be deleted or moved; the title should redirect to Night buses in London where there would still be the list that's currently in the Operations section. Peter James (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Night buses in London is a redirect (and has been since 2009) to List of night buses in London. User:Peter James, your statement might come across to others as if you believe there is a different article to which List of night buses in London could be redirected. In fact, I think you mean that you support a move to "Night buses in London" and some severe editing. That's okay for you to want or to suggest, but IMHO that is a matter for editing and non for AFD. "Merge" or "Redirect" would not be appropriate (because there is no such target to merge or redirect to). So IMHO your discussion should be interpreted as a "Keep" vote (or "Keep but suggest rename") for purpose of AFD. --Doncram (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge,Can be merged in other articles such as Buses in London Alex-h (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The list already exists in List of bus routes in London. Ajf773 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTTRAVEL. Anyone advocating for a merge, please explain which part of the article should be merged because an article of this length cannot have a full merge. All I see is a massive list. Doesn't the city of London have a website with this information anyway?--Rusf10 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Most if not all of the list is original research taken from the Transport for London website.Charles (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of bus routes in London doesn't need another whole article merged into it, Night bus route seems to be a perfectly valid resource in my opinion and there are even books written on the subject. Govvy (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need merging as the routes are already mentioned on that list article. If the routes are notable, they'll have individual articles. Currently no N-prefixed London Buses route has one. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. London would simply not exist as it does now without its history of night buses. It would not have developed as it is now. Social culture would not be what it is, without the mixing and encounters that have gone on. Surely there must exist a ton of social science research and indirect research including literature reviews. Aren't there more than a few highly notable incidents in literature, at the Bridget Jones level or crime detective novel or whatever. What about the time the Queen rode a night bus to return from visiting Elton John or whatever.

Honestly I think the topic of "night buses in London" is very clearly a Wikipedia-valid topic, being the topic of at least one book and of at least one documentary. It seems obvious to me that the world of night is different than the world of day, and that there is culture/life/history/more on the buses. There are literally zillions of TV shows and movies with scenes of London night buses. There could be a separate article about the movie/tv settings, or that could be a section in the article under discussion.

I distrust Ajf773's repeated calls for a merger to one big bus list-article, because I sort of believe that what Ajf773 wants is no coverage at all of the topic (I may be wrong, and I ping them to seek their clarification.) I think they are dismissing the topic of "night buses in London". The big list-article has a subsection on just some of the night bus routes (the ones that currently exist and are "Night only routes (N-prefixed)"). All the other current night buses get no mention (there is no mention of night-running or not for all the other routes). It is simply not an article that is ever going to properly cover the topic of night buses in London, which is a huge subject that is the subject of photographic work, of movies, TV shows, books, documentaries and more.

There is no room in the basic London bus routes list-article for discussion of night bus history and movie scenes and whatever. The AFD-targeted article does cover history and social context, and IMHO this aspect should be beefed up. Maybe the simple listing of the actual current routes should be reduced, and the emphasis should be shifted back to being about the phenomenon. Here is a copy of the current history section of the AFD-targeted article is:

The first night bus was introduced in 1913. A few more services were introduced over the following decades, before all ceased during World War II. Services resumed after the war, increasing as trams and trolleybuses were replaced in the late 1950s and 1960s. In April 1984, the number of routes was increased from 21 to 32. At this point the peak service required 80 buses, by August 2013 this had grown to 890.^[1]

Originally the night bus network had its own fare structure, but with the introduction of the Oyster card in 2003, was incorporated into the Transport for London fare structure. Up until the mid-2000s, all routes had N prefixes. However, as some routes merely mirrored their day time equivalents, the N prefixes were dropped and these routes became 24-hour services; for example, route N14 was no longer differentiated from route 14.^[1]

Services are operated by private operators under contract to London Buses. The Night Bus contracts are often bundled with that of the equivalent daytime route and awarded for a five-year period, with an optional two-year extension based on performance standards being met. Some however are tendered individually.^[1]^[2]^[3]

With some London Underground lines operating a 24-hour service from August 2016 on weekends, a further eight routes commenced 24 hour operation on Friday and Saturday nights.^[4] Further changes are expected as the Night Tube network is expanded.

In May 2015, the Night Bus network was the subject of The Night Bus, a Channel 4 documentary.^[5]^[6]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Wallis, Philip (2013). London's Night Buses 1984-2013 (2 ed.). London: Capital Transport Publishing. ISBN 978-1854143723.
^ Tender Results Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Stagecoach London 16 July 2014
^ London's Bus Contracting and Tendering Process Archived 23 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London
^ TfL introduces new Friday and Saturdaynight bus services to support Night Tube Archived 18 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London 17 August 2016
^ "The Night Bus" community on Arriva London buses Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Arriva London 11 May 2015
^ The Night Bus; nocturnal naughtiness on the N29 Archived 10 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 11 May 2015

This is good stuff as far as it goes, and it should be expanded. It is natural IMO to also include (retain) a list of all the N-prefixed and non-N-prefixed night bus routes that currently run, and some listing of old and important but now defunct routes. But I would prefer for there to be more about the culture. Discussion about such editing should continue at the Talk page; it is not for AFD. --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned by other users, the list of buses already appears in another article. We don't need a separate article for each of non-N and N prefixed buses, just one is enough. We do not need a list of bus stops alon each route as generally this is getting into travel guide territory, and routine coverage of tenders and contracts isn't enough to satisfy notability. The night bus history content could easily be just appended to Buses in London or created using Night buses in London. Or if any routes are notable in their own right, in an article for that route. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again Night buses in London is merely a redirect to List of night buses in London; the topic is broad and can naturally include a list. So the deletion nominator is suggesting "Keep". Or perhaps instead they want to propose a split?!?! Or a rename??? That is not for AFD.

It has repeatedly been established by two previous AFDs and by multiple participants here that "night buses in London" or "list of night buses in London" is a notable topic. Simply keep. Arguments about "travel guide" etc are nonsense, IMHO, with respect to this AFD. If stuff gets too much like a travel guide, then that is a matter for editing. This AFD is ready to be closed Keep already, IMHO. --Doncram (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nominator is suggesting delete. Nothing in this article needs to be merged anywhere. Only stuff in your endless list of sources you want included. Ajf773 (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That last was not a sentence. I dunno, i suppose you meant to be sarcastic about "sources"? --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What i think is going on is: the deletion nominator assumes (or "knows" from their life experience) that "night buses in London" is not a thing, so they don't look for sources; I personally assume (or "know" from my life experience) that it is a thing, so i didn't look for sources either.

Okay, let's try a simple search, google for "night bus London photo". That instantly yields:

Multiple hits coverage 2016 book "On the Night Bus" by photographer Nick Turpin: Wired, Londonist, Hoxton mini-press, Anothermag, CreativeReview, HuckMag, MetroCoUk, (and there are lots more)
"Night owls: portraits of life on the night bus – in pictures", ongoing project by Sarah Lee for the Guardian, Guardian
"London Night buses through the years in pictures", Economist, 2016
And my favorite: "Tales from the night bus: Photographer Tim Kavanagh's eerie photo series", in Independent. Sophie Heawood's 2014 article is personal and funny!
And like I pretty much asserted above, there exists an endless list of sources, if you want to look back over more years or otherwise spend more than 2 minutes like I just did. So, sources exist, so the decision should obviously be "Keep". --Doncram (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTRAVEL, a policy, is directly on point. We do not merely reproduce primary sources. If the topic is notable, the article should be Night buses in London, and cover history, economic importance, rolling stock, etc. Sandstein 21:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, given your opinion about NOTTRAVEL, User:Sandstein, still, why !vote "delete"? The article existed at "Night buses in London" until it was moved in 2009 to "List of night buses in London". Setting aside disagreement about whether a list of bus routes can be included or not, there is still some content besides the actual list of current night buses. It simply seems wrong to me to destroy the connection to past edits and content and Talk page discussion and the multiple AFDs (linked from the Talk page, include various sources not reflected in the article, and more), by an outright deletion. I wrote the essay wp:TNTTNT which has somewhat been accepted (after being challenged by an MFD deletion), against outright wp:TNT deletions, and many of the reasons there apply to Keeping here. Could you please explain why you support deletion rather than move back to "Night buses in London" plus editing? --Doncram (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Music People[edit]

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

No indication of significance. BEFORE search proves this a wonderfully generic search term, but in 38 pages I found two sources that are usable. Apparently though, they're on a different company (selling equipment, stands and microphones and stuff, and not stock music). There are two more plausible sources, but alas they appear to be more or less routine mentions, the first on some internal reorganization, and the second a directory entry. Overall, I can't find any evidence that this company is in any way notable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have a company profile based, seemingly, just on its own website. That's a WP:NOT problem. Considering ALpha3031's review of the sources, it sounds like there's a notability issue, too, but I'm content postponing judgment on that if someone wants to recreate this with a bunch of reliable independent sources later. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I DEPRODded, as it had been DEPRODded previously, before the 2011 AfD decision to delete). No third party sources discuss this company. Fails WP:CORP by a long way. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published website technically verifies that they exist; they require reliable source coverage about them in media to clear our notability standards. This cites none of the correct kind of sourcing at all, but between its incredibly generic name and the article's total lack of any uniquely identifying information (the actual name of even one person who's ever been involved with it, etc.) that might help to distill the signal to noise ratio at all, it's nearly impossible to even attempt to find the correct type of sourcing. Even on a ProQuest search for older pre-Googlable coverage, I get too many irrelevant text matches on usages like "From the first chord of the music, people went nuts" and "This album, I did what I felt was the right thing to do for the music. People didn't always understand" and "It was the music, people were singing" — and this article gives me literally nothing I can use to even try to filter for relevant hits. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable under WP:CORP, so it lives or dies on whether it clears WP:GNG on the sourceability or not — but there's virtually no evidence that it actually does so. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually should be Speedy Delete as G4 because this existed at the time of the previous AFD with a trivially different name and was missed on the close, and then this stub was moved into its place. Nothing has changed since the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first AFD was about a compilation album, not a music production company — so this isn't automatically speediable just because it happens to have the same name as different topic that got deleted in the past. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tammarrian Rogers[edit]

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

Personal coverage ain't there. One Forbes profile blurb doesn't make notability. (Also written like a fan page, but that could be fixed) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Notable I agree there are issues with sourcing and the tone of the article. I am willing to work on that, as well as look for better sources. I have noticed that it can be challenging to find reliable sources for women in technology, so this may take some effort. This may take a week or more, because I won't have much time for working on this in the next week, due to real-life commitments. Rogers is a person of color and LGBTQI, and is working on issues of inclusion. I will look for notability on those grounds more than on her tech accomplishments, which seem significant, but may not be notable on their own. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I would like to note that the author of this article also seems to be new to Wikipedia. While the points make in the deletion nomination are valid, the tone is not what I would hope for when discussing an article about a person who is working on inclusion. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should stay open for at least a week, so if you want to try and improve the sourcing, there's time. Consider just showing the sourcing here if you want to keep it simple; it's about existence of sources, not whether they are actually incorporated into the article yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep ymmv, of course, but e.g. [19] and [20], the Forbes listings, and a general feeling from google that she's well known in US tech circles, suggests to me she meets GNG. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seem to be sufficient lengthy sources to justify notability.--Ipigott (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to Draft, user space or AFC: As much as I want to think her notable, the Forbes mention is the only one that would really go towards WP:GNG. Virgin Entrepreneur would be a reliable source, but not one that works for me towards establishing notability. 425business.com could. That brings two references. Generally for WP:GNG, you need one or two extensive articles or at least 10 to 12 more incidental references. Seattle Times shows nothing. Nothing appears searching The Stranger . I cannot find anything on SeattlePi.com. I do not see anything in Seattle Weekly. A google news search bring sup only 6 results. The KQED reference is incidental (which would bring my count up to 3). infoq reference would bring it up to 4. listelist brings the count up to 5, and an extra point for being outside the United States. Going through pages and pages of Google results, Yahoo results ("Tammarrian+Rogers" no references on Yahoo!News) and Twitter link search, it is hard to find more references that could be used to establish notability that is not going to be marginal. It is possible that there are print references from local tech publications that are not online that reference here. If this was an article about a sports figure, the article would be deleted based on the paucity of sources. Because the article is on the margins, rather than deleting it, I would move off the mainspace until notability can be more easily established. Admin discretion either way because of its place straddling the line. --LauraHale (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify She 's head of engineering at a major company, and people at that level are often considered notable, but the references are not presently strong enough. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Luis Diaz Granados Lugo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ACTOR. Promotional WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY in which none of the various strands add up to much: (1) Video game developer – as part of a university team, won a category in a non-notable national competition. I can't find any evidence that the competition was held again after the 2012 date that Mr. Diaz won his prize. (2) Voice actor – uncredited role in a seven-minute animated short film produced by two students at his university as part of their final year project. It seems likely that Mr. Diaz got the role because he knew his fellow students. It's true that the short film has gone on to achieve some recognition both nationally and internationally [21], [22]... however, Mr. Diaz is not mentioned anywhere in any of the articles about the film. (3) Television – a 48-second interview on his local cable TV station, complaining about his treatment by the army when he fell ill while carrying out his military service. (4) Author – three books, all self-published under one of those self-publishing platforms. No reviews or critical appraisal of the books anywhere. Everything else is referenced to his social media. Richard3120 (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bolke[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject fails WP:GNG and is entirely promotional Lubbad85 (☎) 19:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Jutkowitz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable. Sources are not about Mr. Jutkowitz JMHamo (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is keep. Any renaming discussions should take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:38, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Paris explosion[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The media coverage was of short duration, indicating there was no lasting effect. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a gas leak isn't a notable incident unless proven for its importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WTFS8 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the coverage is fleeting. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article survived a AfD in January, with a clear consensus to keep. It should be kept for the same reasons that it was kept then. It was a significant event which meets the notability criteria: a fatal accident in a busy part of a large city. It was covered by the mainstream media in several countries. The investigation into the explosion and the deaths caused by it is probably still ongoing - and will likely lead to changes in health & safety laws. Jim Michael (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't know why this went to a second AfD, I am still going with keep for a number of facts; issues about the events were raised in the French parliament talks to review health and safety issues and the world wide news coverage about the event. Article could be greatly improved. Govvy (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And close swiftly. This was put through AfD in January with a clear Keep decision. I see nothing that would indicate that this article should be deleted now. Per coverage, per WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The arguments for and against in the first AfD were very weak, such that I don't think that should have any bearing on any policy-based nomination. Regardless, it looks like there's been coverage in the time since. Lasting significance is what we need to see, and I'm seeing things like [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. That's good enough for now. Some of it could be chalked up to routine coverage of the investigation, but there's enough of it, and enough angles, that I don't think it's a problem. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the people who want to keep this article for the reasons that they are giving. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient arguments have already been made in the first AfD discussion. Furthermore, investigations into the incident are still ongoing and media coverage may even continue. WolreChris (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but maybe rename to 2019 Paris bakery explosion. At first glance I wondered if it was anything to do with the fire at Notre Dame, and was maybe some kind of lunatic conspiracy theory article. 78.147.45.52 (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Govvy comment, the last Afd Keep comments laid bare why the article should remain. Garlicolive (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Bronx apartment fire[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Several sources about the event at the time, but restricting a search for just those a couple months later (and thereafter) returns nothing for me so far. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all criteria at WP:NEWSEVENT. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Stars Falling from the Sky. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Falling from the Sky (soundtrack)[edit]

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

I did the search and I didn't find any sources, I read the notability for music and the article is not meeting it AnbyG (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stars Falling from the Sky. The soundtrack ranked number 12 on the national Gaon Album Chart, so it meets WP:NALBUM. However, my search for Korean sources yield very little information about the soundtrack to justify a separate article. The content should at least be included on the drama's article. ℯ xplicit 00:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. Agree with Explicit's reasoning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This has been listed for nearly a month. While some of the !votes are weak, the consensus is still heavily on the keep side. It also appears that the article has been significantly edited since being nominated and the nominators concerns have been addressed in those edits. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayisha Fuseini[edit]

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

Has won an award but not a notable one. A search brings out a few passing mentions from reliable sources but nothing WP:SIGCOV.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON Lapablo (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this article is just barley acceptable of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just enough coverage to establish notability: e.g. Gglobal Cosmetic News, El Pais, News Ghana , Graphic Online News, etc. Also, I wouldn't call the IIA awards "not notable." They are backed by big multinational African banks and organisations including the African Development Bank.Tamsier (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. A more complelte article would helpus see notability DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article has 4 credible sources that significantly cover the subject. Some of these sources included major media houses and corporation across the African continent and beyond and in multiple languages --Flixtey (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I am not an expert, but "Al Jazeera" coverage seems to show WP:GNG. FIFAukr (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has been blocked indefinitely, but the point is somewhat valid. The user added an Al Jazeera interview of the subject. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passed WP:GNG. At least three reliable independent sources with significant coverage: the Global Cosmetic News article found by Tamsier (admittedly I thought it was a blog at first), Invest in Africa article, and the Al Jazeera interview. The other three sources given by Tamsier seem to be minor mentions. There is also significant coverage from an article by CAMFED, however it is not independent. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Good job @MarkH21: for finding those. Yes, Global Cosmetic News is not a blog. For some reason I'm now having technical problems with my computer. Hope it's a temporary issue. Could someone kindly add the sources to the article?Tamsier (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've done it.Tamsier (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Not entirely clear, but I see enough that leads me to give the benefit of the doubt re: WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A Google search of the subject shows her being discussed (albeit briefly) in a number of reliable sources, including AlJazeera. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marutsu Elec[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Not seeing any in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. Perhaps it exists in Japanese - if you find non-English sources, please make sure to explain to others what makes them reliable if this is not apparent in the first glance (like coverage by notable mainstream Japanese newspapers, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the article has been declined for proposed deletion in the past (see WP:SOFTDELETE for more information).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional Lubbad85 (☎) 12:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it's absolutely not promotional. I've been unable to find any additional coverage since I no longer live in Japan. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's not promotional, just WP:YELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be recreated by an established editor who isn't being paid for it. Sandstein 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DataXu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The company does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. They are an obscure company within their field. The article serves as unambiguous advertising or promotion for the company. Additionally, the page is written by numerous dummy accounts from Wiki Professionals, a marketing agency that specializes in writing and managing Wikipedia pages for a fee. They also promote it on their portfolio: https://[wiki professionals company domain]/wiki-portfolio/ The URL for Wiki Professionals has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. Sonstephen0 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on amount of references and also additional references in Google news, it meets basic WP:GNG. Google news has 253 results on the company name! ~Leny Tee55~ 07:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So here's the thing: it looks a little notable, based on the sources. However, it is the product of undisclosed paid editing, and does not look to have more than minor changes by anyone else. Thus I would support deletion, without prejudice to an established editor recreating. It's striking how many of the keep !votes at the AfDs are very new, largely working on corporate profiles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hold on. I'm not actually seeing the concrete evidence this was created by a paid editor. @Sonstephen0: I think I'm looking at the page you referenced, but don't see DataXu listed? Could you clarify? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they updated their portfolio page and it isn't listed anymore. However, the talk page of the article mentions that it was created by numerous SPA's and the page creator isn't active on wikipedia anymore. Sonstephen0 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources presented to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church (Burlington, North Carolina)[edit]

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

Generic local congregation, no substantive third-party sources to establish notability Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- quite apart from copy-vio issues, this appears to be an unremarkable local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Halt/Wait - Someone needs to find more sources within a month or two of about this one of two only Eastern Orthodox Parish, as well need to be noble Primary or Secondary based I guess, before if they wanted to delete the page, with my approval. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chad The Goatman Just so. Will you have a chance to look for some?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh course, not right now as I mentioned with also given the reason of extending it until there no new sources. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I wrote this article a few years back and, admitting, did not do a great job. That being said, it is unique for a Greek Orthodox parish to exist in rural North Carolina and I feel that, with some help or time, I may be able to find more written sources to back a claim of significance. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willthacheerleader18, I've added two sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my current location in its state standards, Is prefer as semi-urban and small city since its have current 52,000 to 54,000+ people living there. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources references are being added and commitments have been made for article improvement so deletion is unwarranted at this stage Atlantic306 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to speedy recreation if additional sources are found which show independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, but I'm not seeing any here and don't see any when I look myself. It may be unusual for the area, but the fact of that doesn't manifest sources for us to use. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Severino[edit]

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

Article about an amateur footballer who featured on a Fox Sports reality TV show. There is coverage of his stint on the show in the Argentine press (I added a La Nación link to the article), but I don't believe his reality TV appearances are sufficient to make him notable - and his amateur footballing career isn't either. Jogurney (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough to pass GNG. As well as that tv appearance, Severino had a notable career with Atlas (258 apps 109 goals BDFA) which brings notability: Mundo D - La Voz, Infobae, Clarín, Fox Deportes R96Skinner (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good research by R96Skinner, meets GNG. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think. Per nom. His Atlas career was in the fifth tier of Argentine football, three levels below fully professional, and not many people would consider a long career with a Northern Premier League club to be notable, even if the club did feature in a reality TV show. The articles listed by R96Skinner are different media outlets' version of the same piece, about his emotional five minutes against River in the Copa Argentina a year after he retired from playing, which seems to be as part of the reality show. I don't think that's enough for a GNG pass. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is correct - all of the non-routine coverage in the Argentine press relates to his stint on the reality TV show in some fashion (including the unsuccessful trial it generated at DIM). He certainly was a star amateur footballer, but that's well below our footballer notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – mostly per R96Skinner's research. Rare, but I believe this is a notable amateur football player. The top WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV I see are Mundo, and infobae, and the combination of these two Clarin articles [28] [29]. (Fox Deportes is in-depth but they produced the reality TV show (per our article) so not independent.) Per WP:42, there is plenty of material here to write a decent biography. My Spanish is not good but I think he held the scoring record for Atlas. Leviv ich 06:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've noted below, three of those four articles are all from the same PR stunt. SportingFlyer T·C 01:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried, but I don't get it. For years, Mr Severino did a shitty job in order to feed his family and played amateur football but was never able to progress higher up the leagues like he wanted to. A TV station made a reality show about Atlas, the amateur club he used to play for, and as happens with reality TV participants, he had a few weeks of "fame". Some years later, after he'd given up football, Atlas were drawn in the cup against the big club that Mr Severino supported. He went back to the club and begged to be in the team, the management thought it might get them some welcome publicity, and once the team was comfortably losing the game, he got five minutes on the field. It's a lovely feelgood story, the sort of thing that the popular press were bound to cover, and I hope it works out for him. But that's it. How is that not WP:BLP1E? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"A few weeks of fame" is not accurate. The reality TV show was on the air for 10 years on Fox Sports as of 2015. Severino was the captain, and I think later the manager, of the team, as well as (I think) holding the team record for most goals. He was the "face" of the team. It looks like he was a football celebrity in Argentina for maybe two decades. The five-minute televised encore in 2017 was a "comeback"–he was already famous (and notable) by then. For me, it doesn't matter if he was professional or amateur–notability is not a judgment about career success–it matters whether he was "noted" or "worthy of note", and the RSes seem to agree that he is, and for many years. Check out the pre-2017 coverage of him:
2010 article about Severino becoming captain of the team

2010 interview with Severino

2014 profile with a video interview of him. The lead sentence translates to: Wilson Severino is the emblematic player of Club Atlético Atlas ...

2014 story on the club (not really SIGCOV of Severino himself) has Severino as the lead picture. The caption translates to: Wilson Severino, scorer and symbol of Atlas, is preparing to be manager in the future ...

2015 passing mention in a blurb about the club Atlas refers to Severino as ... the incombustible Brazilian striker Wilson Severino.

Not all of those links above are SIGCOV (but some are). In 2017, the coverage really blossomed because of the renewed media attention due to his "comeback" appearance. Yes, that was a publicity stunt, but he was already notable, and the resulting coverage means there is plenty from which to write an article about him. Look at all the references on his Spanish Wikipedia article. The article was CSD'd there in 2014 due to lack of sources from which to write an article. Later it was recreated. They had an AfD discussion about him in 2017 which reads just like this discussion, with editors pointing out that there was now much more SIGCOV of him since 2014, and other editors making the BLP1E argument ("WP:UNEVENTO"). The result of the AfD was mantener (keep). Leviv ich 15:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is effectively a WP:BLP1E. He clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and only has an article as a result of a publicity stunt after appearing on an Argentine reality show. All of the references I've seen only mention him in the context of the reality show. Not a notable footballer. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he's not notable as a footballer, he's notable as a TV personality (WP:NACTOR). The Argentine reality show ("documentary"), Atlas, la otra pasión, about Club Atlético Atlas won a Martín Fierro Award in 2006 (the top in Argentina, like an Emmy I guess). It was on Fox Sports (Latin America). There's coverage of Severino from 2010–2017. This doesn't seem like a one-time publicity stunt. Leviv ich 20:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Under which part of WP:NACTOR exactly? He was featured in a docu-reality show, that doesn't get you there. SportingFlyer T·C 20:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Featured" implies some passing thing like a guest-star role. He was the star for years. Snooki gets an article, know what I mean? NACTOR 2, I'd say, "cult following", as evidenced by the multiple years of media coverage and all the attention that came with the 2017 comeback appearance. Also, he's on Fox Sports, it's a major network on which to star in a weekly, award-winning docu-series. Clearly, he had a significant number of fans for many years. Hence why the team, and the show, are notable (and why this article survived an AfD on Spanish wiki). Realty TV stars of popular long-running reality TV shows get stand-alone articles as a general rule, wouldn't you agree? Leviv ich 20:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I got that, by the way, from comments at the Spanish-language AfD discussion from two keep votes: This footballer, in addition to showing a couple of important records for a historical club of Argentine soccer, also stood out for his participation in a television program related to the club. So it is no coincidence that his sporting career is considered by the main Argentine media (Clarín, La Nación, Infobae) and also by its main sports media (Olé, El Gráfico magazine, etc) and that the River Plate club have honored him as reflected in the text. and The relevance goes beyond his condition of "fifth division player", and this is credited by the sources present in the article. It is a very particular case, which has become relevant as an example of personal improvement. It is not about a character who has been on the news once, but who has had a quasi-leading role in a TV show that has been known for many years. Therefore, it is not any fifth division player, not even limited to being a prominent or historical figure of your club. On the contrary, this condition of marginal, of unknown, actually reinforces the relevance. Not that we're bound by their "keep" result, but I value the opinions of Wikipedians who (unlike me) are native speakers of the language and live in that part of the world. Deletion discussions are more or less the same in any language I guess: ... no se puede tener ese nivel de agresividad, falta de respeto y prepotencia gratuita hacia otros usuarios por el solo hecho de tener opiniones diferentes. Llevamos añares así con tus intervenciones desmesuradas ... Edita tu comentario y opina en forma respetuosa y mesurada, antes de que me dirija al tablón. which translates to ... you can not have that level of aggressiveness, lack of respect and gratuitous arrogance towards other users for the mere fact of having different opinions. We've endured for years like this with your excessive interventions ... Edit your comment and opine in a respectful and measured way, before I go to the board. Leviv ich 20:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree. Reading through the Spanish AfD, I am far more taken with the delete arguments, especially considering his article was already once deleted on the Spanish website back in 2014, notability is not inherited (do all players for Atlas get to have articles since they were on the show?), and the Keep arguments in Spanish mostly related to his "one shining moment:" getting to end his career with five minutes on the pitch against River Plate, which swamp his Spanish language page. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as I understand it, the reality TV show did win an Argentine television show award in 2006, and has aired for over a decade. It probably deserves it's own article. Mr. Severino certainly appeared on the show, and all of the articles covering his football career derive from those appearances on the show. I think this is a BLP1E issue, as his amateur career isn't particularly notable (there are literally thousands of amateur players around the world who hold some record for a club, just as we could find thousands of high school football or baseball players who hold records for their school's teams). I don't see him acquiring notability as an actor, but that's the only way I could see us concluding the article should be kept. Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dietrich Stephan. Sandstein 20:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NeuBase Therapeutics[edit]

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

No apparent basis for notability. They do not have any actual products to address the diseases mentioned. They merely hope to develop them--according to the sources they might file their first IND in 2020, and it would be a long time before anything actually would be approved. Listing the diseases here in a case like this amounts to promotionalism . DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon. Sounds like they're a new company working on some potentially interesting things, but not enough to attract sufficient attention to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect—Point the name at Dietrich Stephan, the founder of the firm. Any non-trivial info could be added as a subtopic there, and an article spun out when/if warranted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. There is, however, some feeling that parts of this could be merged into various other, existing, articles. If somebody wants to undertake that effort, ping me and I can userfy this for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Gas as an Instrument of Russian State Power[edit]

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

Very little of the article is about the (dubiously notable) book. The parts that are not OR could be added to Natural gas in Russia or related articles. eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the article doesn't seem to be about the book, the book itself doesnt seem to pass WP:NBOOK as well, and so the article should be deleted. Meszzy² (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with relevant portions added to existing articles about natural gas in Russia, etc.TH1980 (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete, the book is listed as a recommended read on the NATO website and several scholarly reviews have been written about it, so this passes the first guideline of WP:NBOOK. This also seems to be relevant for scholars in the national/european security field (although only 21 researchers have cited it according to Google Scholar). The article does need, however, substantial edits. Thymmons (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book is not notable, but the subject is notable. I think the page could be kept if rewritten accordingly. Or the content could be merged to economic warfare or something else. My very best wishes (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Space: 1999 weapons and equipment[edit]

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

Pure WP:Fancruft material that is better suited for a fan wiki. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Doesn't seem to be based on any independent in-depth coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show only ran two seasons, what fancruft is notable can fit in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't stop someone from making pages on every single episode, every single character, every single vehicle, and lists of all the equipment, etc. I've sent a bunch of them to AFD, and turned the character pages into redirects. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Spoony Experiment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on a minor e-celeb with a website and a youtube channel. It was originally nominated for deletion in 2010, and the only thing that saved it then was that he had won some kind of award through Mashable. Now, I have never heard of this site before, so I have no clue how important this award is. Second, the award was won simply through an online poll, so his fanbase just voted for him on mass in a relatively obscure poll. Conclusion: the poll should not be used to determine his notability. The bigger issues is that he has few sources if any, and the page uses primary sources. These were issues when the page was made in 2010, and the page was tagged in 2012 for these issues, but they haven't gotten better.

Now, I can imagine a page of questionable notability in 2010, but through the years, their fame has grown and now they're notable. But this isn't the case. If anything, his fame has dwindled even more, and he appears to be retired.

Short version: few if any reliable sources to establish notability, and his only award is of questionable validity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see a couple bits and pieces, of which this is probably the best, but not quite enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:WEBCRIT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [30] and also all the rest about him. He is notable enough that a major game maker, Richard Garriott, brought him over to his castle and did a series of interviews with him, and praised his work. The awards he won were considered notable at the time, not sure if that's changed. The guy has done a lot of things [31] but not sure if any of those got reviews anywhere. There wasn't as much coverage for internet people in the media back when he was most active so hard to find anything but passive mentions of him about. Dream Focus 16:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His relationship with Richard Garriot, or how many entries he has on imdb is irrelevant. What matters is sources, and we have 1 short profile. If he ever becomes notable, that coverage will be useful in building a page. But as of now, he's not notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's the app.com one that I linked, indeed, which of course is not enough in itself. I'm not aware of a notability criteria that involves invitations to castles, but if you have other in-depth coverage in reliable sources, I'm happy to switch to keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are non-independent or brief. There's the one interview above but this doesn't appear notable for a youtuber. Reywas92^Talk 06:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Dream Focus in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments above. Lacks the multiple independent significant pieces of coverage needed to demonstrate notability or meet WP:WEBCRIT.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiul Huda Dipto[edit]

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

By having a look on the sources, one can easily argue that the article is an advertisement and fails to fulfill any criteria about WP:BIO. All of those sources are trivial coverage, some of them only mentioned his name on a routine news article and some of them don't. The article also declined during draft. ~ Nahid ^Talk 03:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly promotional, + non-notable + no WP:RS, full with self-published and affiliated, so ideally this article should have been CSDed- Promo, and the user should be reported to admin board. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "the user should be reported to admin board". I suppose that you mean WP:ANI. That page says: "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems." There is no urgent incident, and no evidence of a chronic, intractable behavioral problem. -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no proof but i suspect this might be paid editing since this user & their sock-puppet trying to create article about non-notable person. Anyway delete this, clearly promotional, non-notable, fails WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, NoWP:RS. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weaklingchris[edit]

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

Notability and lack of reliable sources 9H48F (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant reliable sources have been provided about this music producer/Internet personality. Most of the sources are social media or links to track listings of albums. No clear claim to notability under WP:MUSIC or any other criterion has been made. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing enough to pass WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article looks like an attempt to promote his Vine videos. He is only present in self-created social media. If he had any reliable media coverage, it would not be necessary to pad this article with the names of his mom and girlfriend. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:MUSIC. Userqio (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[NightBuses-1] Wallis, Philip (2013). London's Night Buses 1984-2013 (2 ed.). London: Capital Transport Publishing. ISBN 978-1854143723.

[2] Tender Results Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Stagecoach London 16 July 2014

[3] London's Bus Contracting and Tendering Process Archived 23 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London

[4] TfL introduces new Friday and Saturdaynight bus services to support Night Tube Archived 18 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine Transport for London 17 August 2016

[5] "The Night Bus" community on Arriva London buses Archived 29 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine Arriva London 11 May 2015

[6] The Night Bus; nocturnal naughtiness on the N29 Archived 10 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine The Guardian 11 May 2015

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]