Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 April	18 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Scott Jones[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Coverage appears to be limited to mere-mentions and interviews (generally in connection to his role in Isn't it Romantic), as well as their non-independent UCB profile. Going off of the content of the article, it's not clear that any of Jones's TV roles were particularly notable (although some of the shows were notable), and his appearances in film are limited to mostly minor roles, with the most significant ones being a supporting character in Isn't it Romantic and a role in Can You Ever Forgive Me? that was not significant enough to merit Jones's character's inclusion in the Wikipedia article's plot summary. Likely just WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR.Germcrow (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NACTOR. Papaursa (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pearson (radio presenter)[edit]

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

No reliable sources. The only link is an archived presenter page. UK Wiki User (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Former local radio presenter with no reliable sources. The only sources provided are presenter pages with no third party sources to be seen. I was unable to find much when searching on Google other than his Twitter, Facebook, Mixcloud etc. Toby Hynde (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Not much references on the page.Germcrow (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stronger KeepHis current position is Managing Director of Manx Radio on the Isle of Man. There are now four inline citations. He is clearly well referenced and has a notable position as Chris Sully, his real name. Please tell us which references are not reliable, and why he is not notable as a current radio managing director. I will now get more references for him as Chris Sully, his real name, and create a redirect to this page.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the managing director of a radio station is not a free pass into Wikipedia just because it's been stated, firstly — it can get a person in the door if he can be really well-sourced over WP:GNG, but it is not an instant notability freebie that automatically entitles him to keep an article just because he exists. So we come to whether the sources get him over GNG or not, to which the answer is no: having a staff profile on the self-published website of one's own employer is not support for notability, so sourcing his work for BFBS to the BFBS website counts for nothing, and the "Pirate Radio Hall of Fame" is not a reliable source at all, so having a profile on there counts for nothing either. So all we've actually got here for GNG-worthy coverage is two very short blurbs about the announcement of his new job with Manx Radio — but again, that's not an inherently notable role, so it would take a lot more than just two employment announcement blurbs to get him over the bar for it. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 22 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Miles (radio presenter)[edit]

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

Delete. Article has no reliable sources or references. An edit war is currently going on at Time 106.8 which includes a link to this article. Another user believes this to be self-promotion with very few sources which led to this article being nominate for deletion. UK Wiki User (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Having looked at the edit war on the mentioned article above, there are a few questionable presenters on there. This being one of them. This article is far from meeting the WP:BASIC criteria. Both links provided are primary sources. Toby Hynde (talk) 09:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of rowing terms[edit]

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

Almost all of this is unsourced, and thus WP:OR. It's been tagged for needing additional citations for seven years; if nobody's undertaken to find sources yet, I don't expect anybody ever will.

What got me going on this is the statement, " It is common to use Roman numerals, especially when referring to a VIII", which I don't believe is true. But, with no citation, no way to tell.

I suspect I will get beaten up over this nomination. On the one hand, WP:NOTCLEANUP is valid, but that's not a free pass to avoid complying with WP:V indefinitely. I suppose this could be trimmed back to just the (very few) entries which do have sources, but you'd be left with something that's almost useless. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly going nowhere, so I'll withdraw the nomination to save time. But, an essential tenet of the encyclopedia is that we only publish WP:V material. Articles like this are some mix of official terms, jargon, and just plain slang, with no indication of which is which. The fact that this has been around for a long time and is read often isn't an excuse for keeping it, it's a reason why it's that much more important that it be verifiably correct. I've marked a few of the more slang-ish terms with "citation needed" templates. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I could immediately verify the very example alleged to be dubious. I easily found multiple book examples of "rowing VIII",[1][2][3] "Oxford VIII",[4][5][6] and "Cambridge VIII",[7][8][9] but very little in the way of "rowing 8", "Oxford 8", or "Cambridge 8". Unsourced is not synonymous with unreferenced, a common misconception, and no other rationale is offered for deletion. SpinningSpark 22:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:V states that only "quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations". See also WP:BLUESKY. WP:OR refers to truly original thought, not straightforward stuff like the meaning of rudder, seat and stern. And note that this page has existed for over ten years and has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people. What makes such articles acceptable is not some pro forma citations – that's just busywork – but Linus's Law. If there had been significant issues or errors, they would have been picked up years ago. Long-established pages should be protected from such facile drive-by nominations. Andrew D. (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Baseless nomination. This is an important article that gets several hundred views a day. Any substantial problems would have long been rectified. Schwede 66 18:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is inappropriate. This article meets all content guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 02:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if things need sources, add sources, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list does not need to be entirely sourced, if there are links to well-sourced articles, as is this case. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll have to agree with the other users who voted keep, it is enough if the articles linked are well sourced, there is not a compelling enough reason to delete this article. Garlicolive (talk) 01:36, 23 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. "soft" delete per lack of discussion Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Cactus[edit]

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

This article does not meet notability guidelines dhawk (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Evans (artist)[edit]

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

No indication here that he meets WP:ARTIST, nor can I identify any reliable source that might show that he does. He is not Richard Evans the eminent historian and biographer of Hobsbawm; he is not Richard Evans, artist and teacher born about 1923; he's not Richard Evans the brass band director. They all receive at least some coverage, but I've failed to find any of this person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been waiting to use this line: It's a Dick problem. Richard Evans appears to be sometimes referred to as "Dick Evans". I think. See, for example, this coverage in Australia, two sentences in the Independent, the Financial Times... @Justlettersandnumbers:, does this sound like the correct Dick/Richard? Not drawing any conclusions on notability until we establish the identity. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks references. Fails WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly way too little coverage to pass our notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Johansson[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG in my opinion, [10], [11], [12], [13] plus more on the web. Govvy (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are Pundit Arena and The42 RSes? I can't find anything at WP:RSN or WP:WPFLINKS, and I can't figure out from their website if they have editorial oversight. Leviv ich 03:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Levivich The42 is part of the Irish Journal which is a member of the Press Council!! Can't get more legit than that. Pundit Arena, not that new anymore is a very well established and reliable web based news service made up of professional and non-professionals who can put forward their news items, all news is vetted before being posted and it's run on a reputation based system. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not seeing SIGCOV to pass GNG. Pundit Arena appears to be user-generated content ("Pundit Arena is an Irish-based sports media publication that provide aspiring journalists and articulate fans with a platform to showcase their work" [14]) and The42 is part of TheJournal.ie which appears to be the same ("TheJournal.ie is an Irish news website that invites its users to shape the news agenda." [15]). Neither appear to have proper editorial oversight. Membership in the Press Council, which started ten years ago and seems to be a Better Business Bureau (complaints department) for the Irish Press doesn't appear to involve any kind of vetting, nor does it indicate editorial oversight. I think it can get more legit than that. For example, The Times and Independent, but those are routine trade-rumour stories: one about him going to Ireland, one about him not going to Ireland. Meanwhile, he has yet to play in an WP:FPL game. This 18-year-old isn't a star yet. Leviv ich 00:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The42 is not user generated content, it's the sports magazine of the Irish Journal. Pundit Arena has oversight, you really haven't vetted properly. Govvy (talk) 09:44, 14 April 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)} 18:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Can be restored if he ever plays in a fully-professional league or makes a full international appearance. Number 5 7 08:54, 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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belfield FM[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE. All the sources are either primary sources, or only mention the radio station in passing. I'd reckon the "Keep It Country" situation has enough sources to be in its own article, however in all the sources mentioned in WP:ANI more mention the situation in detail; not the radio station, which again, gets mentioned in passing. Whilst the Keep It Country situation could stand a probable chance of passing WP:NOTABLE, the radio station on its own, does not. Thus the reason why I am proposing this article for deletion. The Duke 18:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Licensed radio stations — including those that have ceased operation — are usually considered notable. See WP:NRADIO. "Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers, are not presumed non-notable just because they primarily serve a university or college student population, but are judged by the same inclusion standards as any other media outlet. A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves."

I can't find this station on the list at https://www.bai.ie/en/broadcasters/ and I don't know why. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only college stations listed there are ones with Community Licenses under section 64 of the 2009 Broadcasting Act, coincidentaly their contracts all tenured in 2017. Belfield FM, similar to many student organised station is Ireland, lacks the funding and ownership structure currently required to apply for a full time license i.e. the voluntary nature of the station means that it lacks a full time staff member to hold accountability. Belfield FM does meet all of the BAIs requirements otherwise as it: serves social benefit for its community of interest, is not run for profit, and has collective ownership from all of its members with a management committee representitive of the service. When the station was previously organised under the UCD Students Union, it had three paid staff and was broadcast wireless under the BAI as a pilot community temporary sound broadcast, allowing for 100 hours of broadcast per semester. Frequency was 97.3FM and later 107.8FM (there may have been others used over the years), with a range covering about a 5km diameter from the studio which was at the time referred to as "the Kiosk". Given its current budget, the station could still broadcast for about 30hours per annum by acquiring temporary licensing under section 68 of the 2009 Broadcasting Act as an institutional applicant. However, with the stations core audience being young college students, they have opted to exclusively broadcast online since disassociating from the SU in 2011, which only requires licensing from Phonographic Performance Ireland (PPI) under tariff 77. I'm sure the station was listed as a broadcaster on the BAI website back in the day! [Usertalk|Nibbihak] 12:48, 18/04/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibbihak (talk • contribs) 12:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So if it was a licensed broadcaster once upon a time, it was notable then, and once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the station was formerly licensed, then it keeps its notability permanently even if it surrenders its license later on. It's true that the peak of notability here may be the "Keepin' It Country" situation, but that misses the actual point: an article about the radio station is exactly where content about a controversial radio show would be expected to be found, so that doesn't speak against the notability of the station itself. I was briefly reticent about the actual quality of the sources, because the ones present in the article are all from the directly affiliated university rather than genuinely independent media, but I easily found several more independent sources (including the actual literal Independent, which is one of the gold-standard sources for Irish topics) on a Google search — so that patches over the only potential deletion argument I could even have actually considered making. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. The argument that holding such a position is a free pass to automatic notability does not appear to be supported by policy or precedent. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Chodankar[edit]

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

Unelected politician, per WP:POLITICIAN. RaviC (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Being the state president of a national political party is an automatic WP:NPOL pass. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Dunlop (politician) for one example of the deletion of an article regarding a provincial/state president. --RaviC (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Dunlop wasn't a provincial/state president.He was only a board memberof his party. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. He was the chairman (leader) of the party ([16]). --RaviC (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being the state president of a national political party is an automatic WP:NPOL pass. plenty of sources in the article itself indicate that the person is independently notable and pass WP:GNG.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a state head of a political party is most certainly NOT an WP:NPOL pass. Just recently a former chair of the Republican Party of California was deleted due to lack of sources necessary to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a state head of a political party is an automatic WP:NPOL pass.The article itself indicate that there is in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are indepndent of the subject is pass WP:GNG.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akhiljaxxn I mean, it's clearly not given that articles on such individuals are routinely deleted if they don't pass GNG. NPOL applies to "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". This applies to government statewide office, not political statewide office, there is a major difference between being a government official who is elected and an officer within a political organization. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject fails GNG as well. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, fails to fulfill notability and promotional in nature. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live At The Observatory[edit]

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

No indication that this newly-released album meets criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. I can't find sources that discuss it in a significant way, only directory and retail listings. ... discospinster _talk 17:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources which discuss the album in a big way. It may be worth userfying, as the album is only 4 days old, but I don't know if it will end up meeting WP:GNG in the future. So delete my preferred option, but if deletion is not what consensus has brought, I would support userfying. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's true that the album is just a few days old, but media notice happens quickly in modern times. I can find no significant reviews for the album in reliable sources and just some minor mentions of its existence in gig announcements. Otherwise the album is only visible in the usual retail/streaming services. Note that there is an older album also called Live at the Observatory by the band TSOL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Live at the Observatory without redirect, and then redirect to The Frights as a plausible search term, until/unless enough coverage can be identified to justify a standalone article. Album titles are nearly always plausible search terms for bands, and a redirect should always be considered before bringing to AfD (or Proding). --Michig (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Tate[edit]

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

Biography (unconfirmable whether it's a BLP or not) of a political activist, not properly referenced to any reliable source coverage for the purposes of establishing his notability. The references here are the self-published websites of organizations he was directly affiliated with, the primary source text of a manifesto he was signatory to, and a YouTube video clip of him speaking -- not even one of them represents real reliable source coverage in real media that is genuinely independent of him, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be much better referenced than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable far-left figure. Several citations in Google Scholar including a lengthy journal article. CosmosCagoul (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the references are from organisations is affiliated with. Maybe the article needs to be stronger, but he played important roles in the Bertrand Russell peace Foundation, the Vietnam Solidarity Campaign, was a touch-stone in the struggle between the WRP and the rest of the left, and his books of memoir have been wodely cited. He recenty spoke at one of the first academic conferences on Trotsky in Cuba. --Duncan (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the one new reference that got added after this discussion was already initiated, every other reference present here is to the self-published newsletters of chapters of the Fourth International — so they are all directly affiliated sources. The one new source is worth something, but it isn't a magic free pass over GNG all by itself as the only independent reliable source in play — and playing important roles in organizations and being a touch-stone in the struggle between organizations and writing a book and speaking at a conference only count as notability claims to the extent that they can be referenced to reliable source coverage about those accomplishments in real notability-supporting media. None of them constitute instant inclusion freebies for otherwise poorly sourced articles just because they've been asserted — they have to be well-referenced as the subject of media coverage, not just technically verified as true by primary sources, before they translate into grounds for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. Spartacist is affiliated with the International Communist League and Worker's Liberty is affiliated with the AWL. Neither of those groups is in the Fourth International. They are actually rivals to it both of whom split away from it. They are no more affiliated to the Fourth International or chapters of it than the Lutheran Church is a chapter of the Roman Catholic Church. Just because both claim to be the true church doesn't mean they are affiliated to one another. 45.72.136.239 (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have turned up quite a few more independent references, several of which are substantial, and there are more still out there. Warofdreams talk 08:37, 23 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govindananda Bharati[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Rationale was "Non-notable religious figure written about in a hagiographic style, farcical longevity claim, and the only references are to clearly unreliable sources". Also, despite the seeming similarity, I'll note that being a Hindu saint is nowhere near the claim of notability of a Christian saint or similar. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete- Literally a hagiography, the sources are unreliable and give the obviously false account of this man's age too much credulity. I can find nothing better to base a biography on. Reyk _YO! 15:48, 23 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. Both "keep" opinions are by SPAs. Sandstein 15:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burleigh Smith[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography of non notable director. Subject is the director of and actor in some short films. Two have been part of Tropfest but that does not satisfy WP:NFILM. Some have shown at a lot of festivals but that is just an indication of how much time and money he has invested in submitting his film and is not an indication of notability. There is a lot of quotes from reviews (the first one is faked) but most are from non reliable sources. There is a few reliable sources in there but they are capsule reviews, nothing extensive. He has won or been nominated for some awards but none are major awards. Article is bombarded with a lot of sources but for the most part they are primary, press releases, listings, passing mentions or non reliable. The only two reasonable ones are from indiscriminate industry publications. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition to simply not being notable, the entry is patently suspicious: originally created by a user of the same name as the subject; multiple edits by IP address accounts, each of whom are essentially WP:SPA promoting the subject; the nature of the defensive arguments in the edit wars. This is a clearly well curated page by the subject. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Cabrils (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this page. This director has made a significant contribution to the film industry with the exposure of his work to a global audience. A quick search of the Academy Awards Library in Los Angeles shows there are seven of his published screenplays in their catalogue. This goes a long way for credibility. Smith's short films have screened at hundreds of film festivals around the world. Details of some of these screenings are listed here and here. The director is a three-time finalist at Tropfest, reportedly the world's largest short film festival. His films have also screened at Academy Award-accredited festivals, festivals that have been running for decades and festivals that have patrons that include Clint Eastwood, Mike Leigh and the late Robin Williams. These festivals are highly competitive and select only a fraction of submissions to screen, another indication of the director's worthiness for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is no evidence these films have been submitted by the director himself, not that this should be an issue. There is no evidence of any significant money spent on submission to festivals, as reputable directors with strong festival track records often have their films invited to screen, with entry fees waived. There is no evidence this page is an autobiography. The user who has nominated this page for deletion was recently unsuccessful in deleting all of the pages for this director's films and this new nomination is a continuation of that failed campaign. This user was also unsuccessful in having my account blocked. This user refuses to be specific with his criticism. This includes the refusal to state which review he thinks is fake and why. While Facebook is an unacceptable reference for Wikipedia, it is interesting to note the David Stratton quote can also be found as a book inscription here. There are clearly a significant number of valid links to reputable sources on this Wikipedia page, including The Sydney Morning Herald, the National Library of Australia, Screen Australia, ScreenWest, ABC Television, Tropfest, Empire magazine, Filmink magazine, among others. Granted, the page could do with some updating and re-writing in places. But I strongly suspect this nomination for deletion has little to do with the worthiness of the subject. Those voting here must take this into account. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't waste my time addressing most ot the irrelevant adhoms and claims of notability by association above but I will touch on some of the points raised

"There are clearly a significant number of valid links to reputable sources on this Wikipedia page, including The Sydney Morning Herald, the National Library of Australia ...." Um, no there is not. It's best to read things before commenting. You were probably thinking of articles like this. Merely contains his name in a list. Whilst it does verify something it contains no depth of coverage so does not contribute to satisfying GNG. It's not about bombarding us with sheer numbers, it's about the quality of coverage in independent reliable sources.

"This includes the refusal to state which review he thinks is fake and why." I have clearly identified which quote (not review) is faked. Once again it helps to read things.

"There is no evidence of any significant money spent on submission to festivals". Once again try reading things, such as the Filmink source you trumpet above. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this page. I am a filmmaker and I know of, and respect, Burleigh's work. He is a prolific writer and director and the information contained in this page, referenced and verifiable, is of value to the filmmaking community and the wider community at large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pabloc1970 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC) — Pabloc1970 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, proliferation of sources are without exception unreliable, primary, or trivial mentions. Article subject is explicitly quoted in Filmink source as having spent a lot of money on submission fees. Article orginally created by User:Burleighsmith and subsequently expanded by IPs, strong indication of WP:AUTOBIO. Keep arguments are a litany of WP:ATA:
- His films have been shown at lots of WP:FARAWAY festivals!
- Some of those festivals have been attended by Clint Eastwood and Robin Williams!! (possibly the most tenuous application of WP:INHERIT I have ever seen)
- AFD for one of his films failed to reach consensus! (tenuous application of WP:LASTTIME)
- I WP:LIKE his work!
- This is WP:VALUABLE!

Seriously, just delete. Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BenBoyd above has helpfully pointed out that the David Stratton "quote", presently displayed prominently in the article's lead, is referenced to the article subject's facebook page, showing a picture of a book signed by Stratton with an encouraging note to the article subject. <<facepalm emoji>> Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You can't assure me that a director whose films have screened at hundreds of competitive festivals worldwide and whose published screenplays are available in libraries worldwide is not worthy of a page on Wikipedia! By this measure, at least a good third of all filmmakers on Wikipedia should have their pages deleted. Further, a patron of a film festival is someone who funds, endorses and curates the festival, not just someone in attendance!! Please make a better effort. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add WP:BIG, WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:ADHOM to the list. It doesn't matter how many festivals his work has been in; merely appearing in a film festival does not confer notability. Winning a major award is generally taking an indicator for notability (per WP:NFILM), but the only awards Smith's films have recieved are at minor or non-notable festivals (Katoomba, Woods Hole, Angry Film Festival). The West Australian Screen Awards is probably the most notable of the awards won, but the WASA are certainly not a "major award" as contemplated at NFILM. There simply isnt sufficient depth of independent coverage required to establish notability. For this reason neither Smith nor his work satisfy WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NFILM. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Margaret Herrick Library is not a "national film register", and is not of itself an indicator of notability. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If your claims to notability are short-film festival entries and "published" screenplays, you would need a strong WP:GNG to pass muster. I just don't see it. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:15, 22 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 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

지마 (X1-MA)[edit]

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

I think this article is about a television theme song. I had a look at the Korean references, and was not able to determine with certainty whether or not this song is notable, but from what I could understand, it didn't appear to qualify under WP:GNG. If it is kept, its title must be changed. A loose necktie (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created that page with title "X1-MA" before. It's digital single and also television theme song. It noticed in its reference and external link. I want to keep that article, please give any suggestion. Thanks. ModjA (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Produce X 101. Fails WP:NSONG. There is very little information about the song and it has not charted on any Gaon chart or the K-pop Hot 100. ℯ xplicit 11:45, 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 07:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional song to promote a television show. Nothing about the song is independently notable. The song is already covered in the show's article, so there's no need to merge, and the title is not a good redirect per WP:FORRED. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 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. Sandstein 15:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atel (slang)[edit]

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

Originally nominated for PROD by DA1 with the reason: "The article falls under WP:DEL14, that is WP:NOT#DICT #3. Aside form citation 1 which delves into the term, and citation 3 which is a dictionary link; the rest of the citations and most of the article is anecdotal examples of the term in use and not descriptive or encyclopedic at all." FASTILY 20:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep one of the mostly used word in bengali liturature and a frequently used words by politicians including Bangladeshi prime minister Sheikh Hasina^[1]^[2] and others. A lot of scope is there to increase the article. Sharif Uddin (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "গুম আমেরিকায় আরও ভয়াবহ: হাসিনা". bdnews24.com. 23 November 2017. Retrieved 18 May 2018.
^ "সংসদে গুম নিয়ে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর বক্তব্য কী ইঙ্গিত দেয়?". Deutsche Welle. 24 November 2017. Retrieved 18 May 2018.

Keep-It is an anti-elitist epithet used to refer to intellectuals or people considered too out-of-touch with ordinary people, it common and widely used.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sharif Uddin, Vinegarymass911. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Bengali word appears to be আঁতেল. This does indeed have a large number of usages in Bengali sources. That in itself does not make it suitable for a Wikipedia article. The nominator admits that one source has some encycopaedic discussion. There is also nothing wrong with including anecdotal examples, as long as that is not all there is. I am struggling with the language here, as I do not speak it, but as we have one source already, just one more is enough for multiple sources. This book is showing this snippet;

সেই কারণে একটি আসন্ন-প্রকাশ দৈনিক পত্রিকা তার উদ্বোধনী বিজ্ঞাপনে জানিয়ে দিতে সাহসী হতে পারে যে, 'আঁতেল' কোনো কিছু প্রশ্রয় পাবে না ঐ পত্রিকায়। অর্থাৎ আমাদের বুঝে নিতে 'অঁাতেল' অর্থাৎ বুদ্ধিবোধের বিশ্লেষণ, সামাজিক ও সাংস্কৃতিক সমস্যার ...

which appears to show that there is at least some discussion of the term there if I have got the right idea from a machine translation. SpinningSpark 18:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vinegarymass911--SalmanZ (talk) 22:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster Collective[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to pass notability requirements. There are a lot of Google hits, but they're quite sparse and trivial, such as " “I don’t mind destruction, I don’t mind debate, but I do mind something that comes off as being intellectual but is actually simplistic and juvenile,” said Marc Schiller, whose Web site, Wooster Collective, documents street art. " and this one is on the more extensive side of brief mentions. Graywalls (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I can understand the nomination to AFD in that there is no true INDEPTH articles concerning just Wooster Collective in a typical Google News search. However there are quite a few mentions and references of the Wooster Collective in RS such as the New York Times – Huffington Post – Time (magazine) and several other secondary reliable sources, as shown here [17]. In addition, if we expand our search to include Google Scholar we see that the organization is well represented with more In-depth exposure as shown here [[18]]. Given this information I believe the organization has gained enough attention to have a piece here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I just added four more NYT citations, bringing the total to 5, one of which is of decent depth. It tells you something if RS are regularly referring to a website, or one of its creators in their articles about the subject, or asking them for quotes in stories. Full disclosure, I met Schiller a few times a decade ago, though I never worked with him, and don't think this affects my impartiality at all. --Theredproject (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this is leaning towards keep I think some more discussion is warranted since User:Theredproject just added some more citations to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Based on the coverage of the subject on authority media - including outside of Google News. Although not in-depth per se, but there is extensive coverage of the website with many references being made referring to the subject as an authority among street art blogs and collections. Although this is not a solid keep, I'm leaning towards an upvote. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 14:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 18:47, 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 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced SystemCare[edit]

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

This article has been created many times in the past by various accounts that ended up being blocked for advertising. I am aware that it was closed as keep on one occasion but then the article apparently became a promotion vehicle and was then deleted due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IObit. I expect that the same thing will happen with this iteration. ... discospinster _talk 17:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am seeing reviews from websites that I would consider WP:RS like PC Mag and TechRadar. Just because this incarnation of the article is poorly written doesn't mean it is inherently not notable. shoy (reactions) 17:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both because the article is promotional (would qualify for CSD G11 in my opinion) and because there is no substantial coverage. A couple of reviews are not enough. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IObit is an Indian outfit, so it has a very large user base. In the UK they pushed it heavily about 5-8 years ago, and it is well known around the world. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Clean the article up and remove the promotion. scope_creep^Talk 09:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NCORP. The sources cited in the article is a Wikipedia mirror site and a Google Play product listing. And that is all, I'm afraid. Even if all the (blatant) promotional slant of the text is righted up through deletion, we still have no sources. Which is why, in suggestions to Keep, we see only unsupported claims to notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly written, very promotional and fails GNG. A solid delete vote. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 14:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant press coverage from reliable sources. Sonstephen0 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick search on Google Books returns only 3 passing mentions of the product, and the results on Google News are just regular announcements of new versions and reviews which are nothing special. Clear failure of WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is written like a promotion for the product, and the only sources are software download websites, not actual reliable sources. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 22:02, 23 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Kansas City Chiefs vs Los Angeles Rams[edit]

2018 Kansas City Chiefs vs Los Angeles Rams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) While this certainly was a great game, it fails WP:NSPORTS, with most of the article dedicated to stats such as the game summary and records broken. — Chevvin 12:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Chevvin: I'll have to challenge this deletion (peacefully). I think this article is notable, being considered the game of the year, 1000+ total yards, and having multiple records broken (how are records not notable?). If you believe it is missing something important, I'd happily add it. EDG 543 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I certainly don't disagree with the fact that this game was very good, there is very little in the article that isn't a game summary and records (which fails WP:NOTSTATS; for a good example of an American football game that meets and exceeds the guidelines, see Miracle in Miami). Additionally, a lot of the sources used were from routine coverage of the game (WP:SPORTSEVENT), which doesn't show notability. Responding to your comment about records, as far as I'm aware, records don't necessarily make a game notable by itself (we have no articles for the two even more higher-scoring games in the NFL). Overall, I feel that the article, although well-written, simply isn't notable enough and is already well-covered in the Rams and Chiefs individual season pages, as well as the list of highest scoring NFL games. Hopefully this clarifies my beliefs a little bit, and I hope that you don't take this personally, as the article is well-written and we could always use more article creators. — Chevvin 14:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chevvin:OK, I did some research and its very uncommon for NFL games to be relocated. Would that make it more notable (If I expanded the short section)? EDG 543 (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep In addition to the tremendous coverage the game received just for the game play itself, there is also additional notability from the efforts of and failure to play the game in Mexico City. Changing the venue of the game on such short notice had definite WP:IMPACT which also leads to notability. While some of the game-play sources are statistics, most are from feature articles that are clearly WP:NOTROUTINE at all. Therefore, the event passes WP:GNG quite easily. There are likely other measures that this event also passes if anyone feels the need to look into them.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content may need work, but the topic is notable as per Paul McDonald. Lepricavark (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EDG 543 and Paul McDonald. Mosaicberry (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the game was hyped and is historic, and passes WP:GNG. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:22, 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MyTicket.co.uk[edit]

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

The company currently has no independent sources at all, just the parent company's website. I've looked for better sources, but the best coverage I could find was this, this,this and this - all appear to be rehashed press releases and/or comments from the founder, which wouldn't amount to WP:CORPDEPTH. So, fails WP:NCORP unless better sourcing can be found. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - the article also contained some copyvio when I first reviewed it - I've reworded that sentence and flagged for revdel, so the history may look a bit unusual when others review it. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:28, 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 15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Johnson (neuroscientist)[edit]

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

Not my area of expertise, but am struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Seemingly fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No objection. On further examination, can’t find any scholarly articles produced. If consensus is he doesn’t meet standards, there’ll be no contestion from me. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Consumer neuroscience. His book on the topic and the fact that numerous other workers in the area have thanked him for his support suggests he's at least halfway notable, certainly enough for a mention in that other article. The Forbes articles (specially "How Stories Can Impact Your Taste In Food", which is basically all about his book), go quite a long way towards conferring notability, whatever h-index he may have. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being quoted a few times does not confer notability, and I don't see any signification works or contributions which would warrant a page for the subject. --PhobosIkaros ✉ 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - academic and administrator at a business institute, not a scholar. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 22 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 15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Tribune[edit]

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

I've never heard any online or printed newspaper named Bangladesh Tribune. The second reference of the article is talking about Dhaka Tribune not this one. Article fails notability criteria anyway. ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the website shows an error page upon loading so I'm not sure if it's active anymore. Based on the two references provided and the few sources available online, this definitely fails WP:GNG. Not to be confused with Dhaka Tribune. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 14:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ephemeral news portals come and go all the time in Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Tribune website went belly up in 2015. The first cited source is dead, and from the construction of the url, appears to be bogus. The other source is about another company. The Bangladesh Tribune isn't mentioned in the Encyclopedia of International Media and Communications, the ABYZ Bangladesh Newspapers and News Media Guide, or Willings Press Guide. Searches of the usual Google types find no cases of a reliable source citing Bangladesh Tribune, and zero independent coverage. Fails WP:NMEDIA. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 22 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 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Time Parental Control[edit]

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

no evidence at all for notability -- the only 3rd party references are completely general, not about this device. this is essential a directory listing./ DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence yet of sufficient independent coverage. - I had the eery feeling that I'd seen this thing come round before, but figure that might have been WebWatcher (same editor btw). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:10, 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. Fenix down (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Doherty Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a FPL or senior international football and WP:GNG due to an lack of significant coverage. There is this article but that's all I can find. Dougal18 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – does not meet NFOOTY; can't find any SIGCOV to meet GNG. Leviv ich 03:20, 23 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 15:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zeldin[edit]

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

Little to no secondary coverage. Can confirm he's contributed articles to CNN but can't find any independent sources stating that much. Trimmed much unsourced fluffery and what's left is pretty paltry. Article has been contributed to by IPs that are pretty obviously either the subject or associate(s) of his (one is geolocated to his old law firm, others are from the DC area). Might even be a CSD candidate.

Procedural nomination, per request by IP at Special:Permalink/892846485#Requesting nom? For Michael Zeldin. DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails every one of my standards for notable lawyer. The only reliable sources are not - they are a paid notice in The Times and brief mentions in other primary sources. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 22 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. Regarding User:Alivenkicking's comment, he is notable but the current content/sources are not doing justice to his notability, please note that we define notability as the existence of sources. All of the myriad notability guidelines are just hints that if a person has done X, there's probably sources, so we can short-cut the search and assume they exist. But, it's still the sources that rule. If you're saying that his activities are not being covered in WP:RS, then by definition, he's not notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Suri[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a businessman and activist, whose claims of notability for either endeavour are not properly referenced. Three of the seven footnotes are glancing namechecks of his existence in the context of a charitable foundation, but contain no content about him to help establish his notability; a fourth is a social media clickbait site being used only to support the name of his partner, rather than anything relevant to whether he clears an inclusion criterion or not; a fifth is essentially just excerpts of him speaking about himself, rather than third-party journalism about him; a sixth is just a very brief blurb about him once having been bitten by bedbugs; and the only source in the entire bunch that actually meets all of the necessary conditions (i.e. reliable and independent and substantively about him) is covering him solely in the context of having once "won the internet" with a viral Instagram video. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make somebody notable per WP:GNG, because even the strongest source isn't covering him in a context that has anything to do with whether he clears a Wikipedia inclusion criterion or not, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more references for the subject. Will be good to quickly check him and his work by putting the subject name in Google. The article can for sure use more references and sources and in fact more material, but I barely think that the notability of the subject can be questioned. Alivenkicking (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two new references you've added is still a Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, so it can be used for verification of additional facts after GNG has already been covered off but does not count toward the initial question of whether he clears GNG in the first place. Entrepreneur finally gets him off the starting blocks as a source that actually meets all of the necessary factors — reliable, independent, substantively about him, and existing in a potentially noteworthy context — but it still takes more than just one source of that caliber to actually get him to the finish line. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your response. I would wait for other editors to chime in and see their opinions as well and then edit it further. I am sure they can have more inputs on how to improve it further and I will consolidate all the inputs and edit at one go. Will that be okay?

Alivenkicking (talk) 04:48, 6 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) 05:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with Bearcat's assessment of the sources. Some don't mention Keshav Suri, some only in passing, several are Keshav Suri talking about himself. In total, he falls short of the standards of notability. Huon (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, following the comments and analysis of the fellow editors, I searched more and I could dig out more sources. I could find Forbes, Vogue, Mumbai Mirror, Indian Express and few others; and I have included them. There are few others I found which are more in an interview-format and since we established that such kind of sources can only verify more information but can not act as a basis to qualify GNG, I have refrained from using those. Now, I see two ways here...first is that while being cognizant that he is a strong business leader and is running a multi-crore company along with that he has significant contribution for the LGBTQ community - we say he is not notable and delete the page. Second, we understand that he is notable but the current content/sources are not doing justice to his notability and hence, we either move it to drafts to improvise; or delete it and wait to see if any significant independent reliable coverage comes that can verify his notability. Please suggest. Alivenkicking (talk) 15:33, 23 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. Sandstein 15:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ta'Kaiya Blaney[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a child activist and musician, not adequately referenced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. This is referenced to just three pieces of limited-distribution local media: two are from small community weekly newspapers which are covering her only in the context of performing at small community festivals within a short drive of her hometown (and thus not satisfying NMUSIC's touring criterion, which requires a national tour), while the third is a very short piece in a local special-interest magazine which is really just a reprint of an organization's press release and not real journalism. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic hard pass of our notability standards for either musicians or activists, so it takes more than just a couple of pieces of coverage in community hyperlocals to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. GNG, as always, is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anybody who meets or exceeds two" — it also takes into account factors such as the geographic range represented by the sources, and the context of what they're covering her for. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure. Bearcat makes sense. I have no memory of starting that stub, and am not sure why I did. Sorry to waste community time on this one. I'll be more careful in the future. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still taking a look at this, but I found this non-trivial piece from The Globe and Mail: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/vancouver-teen-takaiya-blaneys-voice-captures-the-worlds-attention/article27979163/ Zingarese talk · contribs 17:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and this Globe and Mail review of a film she starred in: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/reviews/article-review-in-kayak-to-klemtu-zoe-hopkins-addresses-a-complicated-issue/ Zingarese talk · contribs 17:25, 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) 05:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. *@Bearcat: With the references that have been added, I think notability has been established. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the articles noted by Zingarese. Curiocurio (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe, with the added sources of substantial stories by Globe and Mail and other articles in local newspapers to the article, this article might satisfy the wp:gng Zingarese talk · contribs 14:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 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 redirect to Landing party. The "delete" arguments are stronger because they are based in our policies regarding sources and not being a dictionary. The "keep" arguments do not address these issues, but consist of the vague appeals to usefulness and interest that often crop up in discussions about fiction fandom-related topics. There is interest in a possible merger with Landing party, but no clear consensus for that solution. I'm redirecting to enable further discussion about this. If no consensus appears to merge content from history the redirect may in time be deleted. Sandstein 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Away team (Star Trek term)[edit]

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

Five sentence stub kept with no consensus a few days over 10 years ago. The three refs are Star Trek reference materials and don't seem to me to be "independent secondary sources", per WP:GNG, or establish real world notability aside from a trivial reference by Heaven's Gate members, per WP:FICT. 9³ (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It's not surprising that a Star Trek concept should be documented in reference material about Star Trek. In any case, there are sensible alternative to deletion, such as merger with landing party or away (sports), and we prefer this per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to Landing party, but keeping this article as standalone seems to fail WP:GNG as officially licensed works do not seem to be independent of the subject. 9³ (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~WP:NOTNEO~~ "NOTSENILOGISM" or possibly merge to Glossary of Star Trek terms, if there are enough entries to justify the latter's creation. Other than the Heaven's Gate wackos, nobody else has used it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to another article like the glossary mentioned above Abote2 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think this content is suitable for inclusion as it is a distinctive star trek term, and someone who might not know star trek terms reading an article about star trek, of which there are many, might come across this term and might want to know what it means. Also a google search sees its use extensivly in articles about star trek as just a normal noun, meaning the term is in use - and again, people may read it and look it up. I was also a bit surprised to see in the three weeks preceding this AFD nomination, the article got 614 page views which is actually quite substantial - so people are reading this article. Clarityfiend's idea of a glossary of Star Trek terms isn't bad, however, it would require a dedicated person to actually create which I don't think we will get in which case we should just leave the article as is. This is not a developing neologism, so I don't see how WP:NOTNEO applies. Meszzy² (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and by extension I don't think it should be a glossary for every single Star Trek term giving individual articles to every phrase that can be found in more than two Star Trek books unless they're all compiled in a dedicated glossary page. 9³ (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however, the current consensus on Wikipedia not being a dictionary is more to do with Wikipedia articles being about their subject rather than about the word like it would be in a dictionary, and not about whether a subject should or should not have an article (WP:NOTDIC). If we considered basic nouns unsuitable for inclusion then articles like Ship or Cat or Away (sports) should not exist. However, they do because the current consensus on Wikipedia not being a dictionary states that the Wikipedia article should focus on ships themselves rather than the exact definition of a ship. So what I see is an article that gets over 200 page views per week, about a term that seems to be regularly used star trek vocabulary. A google search also shows its used regularly as a term in many independent secondary sources about Star Trek - so I'm not seeing a reason for deletion. There's plenty of articles about star trek terms that seem to be just fine, like Tricorder or Dilithium (Star Trek) or Pon farr or Jefferies tube. Meszzy² (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial usage by independent sources verifies that it is a term used in Star Trek, but as opposed to the four articles you linked, which are distinct concepts, the subject is essentially just a fictional synonym of Landing party, where it could possibly fit in say a "Landing parties in media" section. There is also the issue of calling the current three references, which are officially licensed works, "reliable sources independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. 9³ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A subjects notability for inclusion as it is determined per WP:GNG is by the existence of sources, not the three sources cited in the article (as per WP:NEXIST). As for WP:GNG itself, it states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A quick look at google news shows many independent articles using the term. As for merging with Landing party - I feel the two articles are just a bit too distinct for a merge to work well. You have two terms with different names, one about a real-life naval term and one about a star trek spaceship term. Now they are similar, but I'm not sure if they are enough for a merge. Meszzy² (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source using a term is not the same as a source discussing a term. The former is no use for establishing notability, that's the requirement for an entry in a dictionary. Wikipedia requires some actual discussion on which to build an article. SpinningSpark 16:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a glossary. There is just not enough out-of-universe material for a standalone article and likely never will be. The idea that this is a useful page for readers to look up is laughable for a term whose meaning is so self-evident. The claim that the number of pageviews is significant is also amusing. It's just a few dozen per day;[19] right down in the noise caused by bots and wikignomes. In fact, traffic has tripled as a result of this AfD, but is still insignificantly low. SpinningSpark 17:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me up, Scotty Basically a dictionary def. with limited, if any, room for expansion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotty was never on an away team, in his day they were landing parties. This is a Next Gen thing. SpinningSpark 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with SpinningSpark. The sources to justify a stand-alone article just aren't there. This might be suitable for Memory Alpha, but not here. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. A merge with the landing party article does sound interesting though as it really is just a sci-fi version of a landing party and would fit in that article's scope. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 24 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gallina[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not demonstrate notability. Has no independent reliable sources. Only 1 exhibition listed, which was not in a notable location (a hotel), for which 2 of the 3 sources are for, one of them being a primary source. The only other source is a primary source for membership of the industry body the British Press Photographers Association. The article's claim of "one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo had seen" is not credible, written slightly out of context and sourced to a non-reliable source. A quick web search does not give cause to believe the subject satisfies WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Lopifalko (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's Gallery 21. I hadn't heard of it, but it's an actual gallery, as we can see here. I think that "not in a notable location (a hotel)" (in the nomination above) is overly dismissive: it's not as if the works were displayed in an elevator hall. That said, "literally making it one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo had seen"? Why haven't I (in Tokyo) heard of this? I clicked on the reference, and read that "some [prints] measure over 3x2m, making for one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo has seen". So at the least, quotation marks are needed. In terms of surface area, perhaps this was indeed one of the largest photographic exhibitions Tokyo had seen. After all, wall space in central Tokyo isn't cheap, helping to make Tokyo's major exhibition spaces largely immune to the fashion elsewhere for print gigantism; while there's a lot more space in Daiba=Odaiba, on reclaimed land to the south. No matter where it took place -- and (O)daiba was (is still?) a trendy place -- did this large exhibition make some impact? If it did, this isn't obvious. I presume that Gallina's name would have been Japanized as ピーター・ガリーナ or ピーター・ガリナ; but a search in Google for the latter brings nothing while one for the former brings a tiny number of mentions in blogs, on Facebook, etc, but nothing of significance (other than for Peter+Galina). So all in all, notability in Japan(ese) is not apparent. -- Hoary (talk) 23:56, 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! 06:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability (in the Wikipedia sense). - Hoary (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE - this is a run of the mill artist with a single documented gallery show. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 22 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 07:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

America's Party (political party)[edit]

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

While this article appears to be well-sourced, sources 1-5 - the only truly reputable ones from major outlets - predate the creation of this party and have no relation to this party. The remaining sources are either self-published or sources that confirm the party exists. There is no evidence this party has any elected officers or that it has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into the pages for Constitution Party (United States), Tom Hoefling, and Alan Keyes. Toa Nidhiki05 17:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect]] Lack of reliable sources with substantive coverage. Reywas92^Talk 21:59, 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! 06:43, 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 and redirect to Tom Stevens (politician). Sandstein 07:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivist Party[edit]

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

All sources appear to be self-published except for one source (reference 2) that says the group exists. The party appears to have no elected officials nor does it appear to have any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be moved to Tom Stevens (politician). Toa Nidhiki05 17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC) I support the deletion. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 17:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect, though from the dead links and unreliable sources at Tom Stevens (politician), I'm not sure he's notable either. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 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! 06:43, 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 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Baldies[edit]

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

Seems like an unnotable street gang. Sources are pretty thin. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be clear to anyone else looking for sources who ran into this same problem: this is NOT the same gang as The Baldies, also of Minnesota, who were an anti-racist skinhead group. See [20]. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone makes a connection with the 80s+ Baldies (anti-racist skinheads) which seem plausibly notable, I don't see how the 50s-70s group is notable - I'm unable to find enough in my searches. Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 17:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as of now WP:GNG is not met. But if work is done and improves the article I am willing to change my !vote.BabbaQ (talk) 16:43, 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. Sandstein 07:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Shields[edit]

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

Not much reliable source on the target, likely fails WP:ANYBIO. Just notable for being a contestant of Miss International 2004 s regarded as WP:1E. B dash (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of articles that does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:30, 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 redirect to Kalkandu. Sandstein 07:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gajesh[edit]

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

Actor who seems to fall under too soon if ever (kind of surprise it wasn't suggested for deletion when it was started 4 and a half years ago when we were so lenient anymore) Anyway just one role so far. True he might of been the lead in the film, but no other roles. Either delete or a redirect to Kalkandu (the film he was in) He also has a not inherited issue going on. Wgolf (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kalkandu as he does have a lead role on debut in that film but he needs at least another prominent role, preferably more to pass WP:NACTOR for a stand-alone article. The coverage now is partly inherited from his notable father and grandfather, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:55, 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 and redirect to Mathematical optimization. Sandstein 07:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interior solution (optimization)[edit]

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

One user proposed deletion. (Take your pick... either wholly uncited, or simply as per WP:DICDEF.) However I think that we should keep this article or redirect to Corner solution. --Sugyoin (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See User:J heisenberg/A list of economics terms not in Wikipedia. Interior solution is a notable topic in economics. --Sugyoin (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially merge with Corner solution to make article "Corner and Interior solutions", or something to that effect. While nothing appears to fall under WP:MINREF, therefore lack of citations is not an issue, I don't think it deserves its own article any more than it deserves being part of a merged article. John M Wolfson (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are the two topics at the dab page Interior solution related? A WP:BCA might be appropriate instead of the current 2 entry page there. @Sugyoin: If you're alright with a redirect to corner solution, you can just copy what you've done over (with an appropriate edit summary) and redirect it yourself. The other page might provide relevant context. There's no real need to discuss this at AfD unless Onel5969 insisted it should be deleted after you removed the PROD (anyone can do that for whatever reason) and since redirect is pretty much the same as delete here there'll be even less reason if you choose to do that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two topics at the dab page Interior solution are unrelated. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 17#Interior solution --Sugyoin (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect - an interior solution is the opposite of a corner solution. The topic is notable and probably merits a standalone article - however the current uncited (and though not wrong, close to a DICTDEF) article may merit TNT. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Mathematical optimization which does a much better job of explaining what an interior solution is. The only substantive content to this article is the (uncited) claim that "I would buy A and B" is an interior solution. That makes no sense at all. First of all, it's hard to see how that amounts to a solution at all (what was the original problem?) and secondly, it's not an interior solution if A and B are on the edge of the set. This is a worthless page with nothing to be saved. SpinningSpark 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mathematical optimization: the article has no content worth keeping, and the topic is already covered acceptably at the proposed target. If someone wants to write an actual article with this title later, that would be fine. --JBL (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this topic is worth an article, and it gets deleted because in it's present form it is unworthy, and then created later as a substantial article, then the history should get restored later. The "Economics" section looks like one of those occasions where someone assumes the reader has a context when in fact the relevant context should be explained. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with that. The history should be restored if a new article used the old one to build on, but that seems unlikely. Think about it, someone spends weeks constructing a well sourced and well written article for Wikipedia. Next thing they know, some irrelevant history is added apparently showing they did not create it. That's against the spirit of the attribution requirement of the CC license, if not the actual letter. SpinningSpark 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Mathematical optimization as per Spinningspark. Right now this is simply a dicdef. And it's been up for over a week with zero improvement. Unlikely to be more than it currently is.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:44, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Citrivescence (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Derek S. Green[edit]

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

A city council member who does not meet WP:NPOL. (Does city council count as "provincial legislature"?) Although he has received some local press coverage, the only significant coverage is the Tribune article, and it too is local. I was going to suggest a merge to the Philadelphia City Council page but it just links to individual articles for the members. Citrivescence (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Philadelphia is one of the internationally famous metropolitan cities where there has been general consensus to keep local councilmembers. Of course reliable sourcing must be present. In this case, there is adequate independent and primary sources confirming that the subject holds the position. While most of the news coverage is local, there is a good couple paragraphs about one the subject's policy proposals in Next City, a national national urban affairs magazine. --Enos733 (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he seems to pass WP:GNG (to answer your question, City Councils do NOT count as "provincial/state legislatures" IIRC, although some more leeway might be given for such a large city as Philadelphia, but GNG renders the question moot), and while he's not the least obscure person barely notable is still notable. Also, the sources given range from 2000 to 2019 (and excluding the oldest and newest source 2011 to 2019), thus fulfilling WP:SUSTAINED IMO. John M Wolfson (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources, he seems to pass the general notability guideline. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:07, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream League Soccer[edit]

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

Non notable mobile game. Could not find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John M Wolfson (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete iOS/Android games usually have to go some way to prove notability. This one fails. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erm, why don't you people go look up the game reviews and add them, WP:GNG is established by game reviews instead of voting your ballshit delete without doing the research. Govvy (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:P CoolSkittle (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't have any [21]. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find indepth reviews on LiveMint [22] and Gamereactor [23], but I don't find it enough to make this game pass WP:GNG. Pinging CoolSkittle, John M Wolfson, Lee Vilenski and GiantSnowman for opinions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game Reactor is listed as inconclusive at WP:VG/RS, but I don't feel it's reliable. The complete lack of reviews at metacritic is quite damning. The VG custom search brings up some more [24], but the only review I've found that isn't a forum post or blog was [25]. And, to be fair, I'm not happy about pushing notability to an article of two paragraphs, where the name of the game and logo don't match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I saw the TouchArcade one and I skipped on it, it says nothing indepth about the game and is not a source that should be included at all. Even if Gamereactor is included, it is still two reviews, and I feel like that is too WP:BARE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lee Vilenski. CoolSkittle (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For a game I am hearing of for the first time, I find it shocking at how the game is popular on Wikipedia [26]. I don't see 1000+ daily views video game article that often. Of course views do not matter towards notability on Wikipedia, but found it interesting. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Game has nearly a 150k iOS [27] User reviews, so I am sure there is more online if people look for it like these, [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33] and there is more around if you bother to look deep enough. Seriously, that took me five whole minutes and I am sure if people spent half an hour on the subject of this game, GNG would easily be considered. Govvy (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you're serious? CoolSkittle (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are considered reliable sources except for Pocket Gamer, and that source is so short it’s not likely to be considered significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 23:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:54, 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. Consensus is that this is one of these shootings that are routine in the US. Sandstein 07:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Lake City shooting spree[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, especially in that there is little to no lasting coverage locally, let alone nationally. Sounder Bruce 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly routine news event. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIME. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a routine event, and it may actually merit an article at some point (the "blackout" defense may possibly garnet some future coverage). However, while it was very widely covered initially - coverage has gone down to local on not guilty plea - [34][35]. The persisting level of coverage is not sufficient for me to assert RAPID, let alone establish continuing coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CRIME is not the appropriate standard for judging notability here. WP:CRIME simply states that where a person is known only for the crime, then the article should be about the crime and not about the person. The real decider here should be WP:EVENT, particularly WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING. Searching for sources is complicated by the Salt Lake City shooting on the 9th of April, 2019, but I see that this was reported in the Washington Post which certainly counts as national-level coverage. WP:GEOSCOPE therefore seems sustainable. This was a recent event so it's too early to make a call on WP:LASTING, as WP:LASTING states that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". As USER:Icewhiz states there are good reasons for believing it might have a lasting effect (the unusual defence used by the apparent perpetrator). The not-guilty plea was also reported by the Seattle Times. As for WP:NOTNEWS, the relevant part of this is point 2., which states that it should not be a routine event - but there is no suggestion that the events reported in this are routine, especially as they were reported in the British media. Coverage of the shootings from the tech angle (the shooter was an ex-Microsoft employee and claimed to have been playing X-box all day)can also be seen, as well as coverage from the angle of one of the victims being ex-military by Stars And Stripes. On balance I lean keep based on the above. FOARP (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Geekwire has significant local Seattle coverage and Stars and Stripes just republished the Seattle Times article, not as independent coverage. This is simply news, and yes WaPo routinely covers shootings around the US but that doesn't make them all notable.
  - Geekwire is not a "local" publication, neither is the WaPo, which absolutely is a national-level RS, and frankly I don't know why anyone would say otherwise. WP:NOTNEWS is there to stop inclusion of routine events but there are a number of reasons to believe this is not a routine event. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT (particularly WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING as stated above). Gephart (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Standard disclaimer that this user is the article's author) Reywas92^Talk 19:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No need for a disclaimer for the author, their vote also counts. It is absolutely non-standard to try to say otherwise. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Seattle Times. Trillfendi (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This story was also covered in the Washington Post, Star and Stripes, USA Today, The Daily Express (i.e., UK), Geekwire (i.e., from the tech angle). The shooting was also covered by AP and ABC's "Good Morning America". Really disagree with the idea that this was 1) routine and 2) only covered locally. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still falls into the routine category. What substantial coverage has been given to it since March? Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like the guidelines says, it's a matter of weeks/months, not days, to see whether an event has WP:LASTING impact. Has it been months since this happened? No, it has barely been more than two weeks. PS - here's an AP story on this from last week. FOARP (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very WP:ROUTINE news story limited to Seattle proper and the national crime roll for one day after. Please stop with 'the AP covered it because its notable' notices; the AP is a wire service picked up by nearly every newspaper, and network morning shows thrive on crime stories in their 7:30 a.m. A-block, no matter how local they are. Nate • (chatter) 16:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be AP, ABC, the Washington Post, Star And Stripes, USA Today, and GeekWire. Is it just one of those you want me to stop mentioning or all of them? FOARP (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT, ie. it does not have "lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 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.

[1] "গুম আমেরিকায় আরও ভয়াবহ: হাসিনা". bdnews24.com. 23 November 2017. Retrieved 18 May 2018.

[2] "সংসদে গুম নিয়ে প্রধানমন্ত্রীর বক্তব্য কী ইঙ্গিত দেয়?". Deutsche Welle. 24 November 2017. Retrieved 18 May 2018.

[1]

[2]