Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 April	10 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 redirect to Substance abuse. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drug user[edit]

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

Delete and re-direct to ~~Addiction~~ substance abuse that deals with the subject matter in a more factual way. The article title itself is antiquated, and the article has outdated perceptions of what is a drug and who is a drug user. Non-prescription medication is a drug. Not all drugs are illegal. If you are taking an over-the-counter medication, you are using a drug. Legal status of any substance varies by global location. The embedded list is just a random scatter-shot of the drug of choice for famous names. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to substance abuse rather than addiction. Using, say, bath salts doesn't necessarily imply addiction to them. gnu 57 00:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to substance abuse, which covers the same ground much better. What a crap article. maybe not the worst article ever written, but a good example of a poorly written article. eg. "The term "user" is typically employed to refer to someone who is a drug user". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to substance abuse, which covers the same ground much better. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect It almost looks as if the whole thing is computer generated for spam indexing and there's little value to what's already on there. Nothing to be lost from simply losing all of it. Graywalls (talk) 21:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to substance abuse per above.Rollidan (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Genie Company[edit]

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

Non notable company article created by a now blocked sockpuppet Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Whether the company is notable or not is a reasonable question, but for the purposes of this discussion I don't think it matters who created it. The master was blocked for making death threats, which is not acceptable. Neither is socking. But the other articles they created (California towns, California earthquakes, a Norwegian reality TV series, and a motel that was defunct when they wrote about it) don't suggest any pattern of creating non-notable or otherwise problematic articles. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the sources on the article (the books/magazines, not the links to the Genie websites), as well as googling "Genie Company" or "genie door", this seems to be a notable company. Unclear why it matters to the notability of the subject that the creator of the article had some unsavory conduct on Wikipedia. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. As written, the article relies too much on the company as a source, but a variety of reliable third-party sources containing significant coverage have been added to a "Further reading" section. They establish notability and could be mined for content. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International School of Media and Entertainment Studies[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL/WP:NCORP. Ineligible for PROD. SITH (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m not finding the sources to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 10 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) 00:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Measurements and Controls India[edit]

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

This doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP. Ineligible for PROD. SITH (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to indicate it meets the notability requirements of WP:NCORP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maddox Arts[edit]

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

Yet another art gallery that conducts the ordinary routine business of marketing works of art but is not sufficiently notable to pass WP:NCORP. Article created by an apparently COI or UPE SPA (only other creation is a page on Vicente Grondona, who had a show at Maddox Arts in 2010). The gallery, predictably, gets a number of mentions (about 21) on Gnews – it exhibits works for sale, and some of the artists are notable enough to attract the attention of the press; there are a handful of verifiable hits on Gbooks. It gets one hit on JSTOR, for a listing in the "Calendar" section of an issue of the Burlington Magazine of a show of sculptures by Simon Hitchens in 2008. I can find no in-depth coverage at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB: this is not the Maddox Gallery, a rather better-known establishment on which we have already decided not to have a page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The gallery represents

Amparo Sard
Augusto Villalba
Camilo Matiz
Cipriano Martínez
Daniel Medina
Dionisio González
Emilia Sunyer
Gastón Ugalde
Ismael Lagares
Knopp Ferro
Luis Millé
Miler Lagos
Nicolas K Feldmeyer
Peter Griffin (disambiguation)
Rafael Reverón-Poján
Willard Boepple

In addition to the lack of sources, the gallery's roster does little to nothing to establish notability. Vexations (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability of the artists (which is not high here, as shown above) is not inherited by the gallery. Inadequate sourcing to establish notability on its own.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding nothing better than passing mentions, which may verify this as an enterprise going about its business but are insufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 11 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)} 19:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Austin[edit]

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

Shameless COI by an SPA. Non notable. Fails Music & GNG. Article full of PR fluff. Rayman60 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Value[edit]

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

A very old article on a non-notable band that fails to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. The article is unsourced and I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources for it to meet WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be WP:OR of purely local, small time band. No sources could be found, although the band name makes for difficult googling. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:36, 10 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) 00:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

America First Party (2002)[edit]

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

All sources are either self-published or sources that acknowledge the organization exists (or existed). Organization does not appear to have any elected officers or to have been mentioned in a non-trivial manner in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive sources, a few candidates doing poorly in local elections is not a level of automatic notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Party of America[edit]

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

Article does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website, a few sources confirming it exists, and a few blogs. There is no evidence that this state party has any major elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 9 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 17:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Weinblatt[edit]

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

Article is substantially an autobiographical piece that reads like a CV. I have been unable to find enough in depth reliable secondary source coverage to ring the WP:N bell. In particular the subject does not appear to meet our criteria for academics or authors as well as WP:ANYBIO. Even if notability is established, I think the article will need to be substantially rewritten given the obvious WP:COI and NPOV issues. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I conducted a search I didn't find enough that would support WP:GNG. The article also violates WP:PROMO and WP:AUTOBIO. Even if the subject does somehow meet GNG I think its best we delete per WP:TNT and have the article rebuilt from scratch to avoid it becoming a personal ad for Weinblatt. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear COI auto-biography, I agree with GPL93, delete it and let someone else re-write it if he is, or becomes, notable. Robman94 (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna C. Little[edit]

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

Small town mayor, county freeholder, and unsuccessful congressional candidate. None of which passes WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator 9H48F (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Lange Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable county politician, does not pass WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any significant coverage beyond the routine. Fails WP:GNG and NPOL.Jacona (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:04, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Easson[edit]

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

Dude may not meet Wiki’s notability standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locochoko (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does not meet WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE or WP:NPOL at this time. Miniapolis 22:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, subject is not WP:NPOL. This appears to be a promotional page created by the subject at about the time he was looking for a new job after completing his contract with the ALP. Cabrils (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, subject is not [[WP:NPOL] Lubbad85 (☎) 01:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salafi University[edit]

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

Doesn't touch WP:GNG. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MalayaliWoman (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search isn't showing much evidence it even actually exists with this name, perhaps this article is referring to a sub-college of somewhere else. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sprout Watches[edit]

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

Promotional article unsourced for almost 5 years. Searches turned up a few press releases, and a couple of brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Petroro[edit]

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

Can't find much source on her, probably fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article totally lacks any reliable sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nomination 9H48F (talk) 02:36, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan Prakash Singh[edit]

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

Successful businessman. However, not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Was moved directly to mainspace after being declined at AfC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG; basically an advert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peuterey (company)[edit]

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

Article created by an SPA/COI/UPE editor before ACPERM, so did not go through AfC and notability has not been adequately reviewed. I'm not at all convinced that it meets WP:NCORP, so listing here for discussion. The principal sources in the page – La Repubblica, Il Sole 24 ORE, La Nazione (this last pretty much a tabloid rag) – are almost all about Francesca Lusini, who I believe probably merits a Wikipedia page. What I don't see is in-depth coverage of the company itself, beyond routine reporting of routine business. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 9 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 deleted. by Sir Sputnik under G5. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 17:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProLink[edit]

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

Non-notable company. There is a resounding lack of persistent and in-depth coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources—from either news outlets or literature—to demonstrate even the most basic compliance with WP:NORG. ——SerialNumber54129 12:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This company is popular all over the world and the company is reaching its peak so I chose the title. The source arenot much in that article and I think other mentions should be added!!NotTfue123 (Talk) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how this company meets WP:CORP notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator, who commented above, has been confirmed as a sock of Gaurav456 and checkuser blocked. Accordingly, and in view of this article amounting to little more than spam, I've tagged it G5 as a time time- and resources-saving exercise. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:09, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sulin Lau[edit]

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

Promotional article about a corporate officer. Vast majority of coverage are mentions in her capacity as marketing lead for companies she worked for. The alleged awards were presented to those companies, not the individual. All very routine coverage of marketing the marketer. Not sufficient for notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most likely a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a WP:PROMO 9H48F (talk) 13:37, 12 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 Gear train. If there is some content that can be reliably sourced to merge into the target article, then the contents are still available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orbitless drive[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Has not attracted independent coverage in reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per GNG. I'm seeing a small number of mentions of Orbitless Drives Inc. but not enough significant coverage of the technology itself. It is WP:TOSOON to create a page on this new technology. --mikeu ^talk 13:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could support a merge of the info described in the comment below. --mikeu ^talk 16:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - just deleting this seems wrong. The company is plainly not notable; Stocco himself might be (h-index is 12); but the abstract concept of the orbitless drive is very interesting as pure engineering, going back to Watt and his planetary gearbox, if not indeed to the Antikythera mechanism. The orbitless gear is a significant invention, commercial or not. If the article can't be kept I'd suggest a merge and redirect to Gear train as there's sufficient sourcing for a section of that article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: The orbitless gear is a significant invention, commercial or not. Seems to be your own opinion. I'd agree if there was some independent coverage of it, but at the moment all we have are references by the inventor and the article has also been written by them so there are major NOR issues. Based off this the research has barely been cited by other researchers either. SmartSE (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I know gearboxes a bit, but not enough to assess the engineering importance of this. But I would tend to agree with Chiswick Chap that this belongs somewhere else. The rhetoric of the page makes it sound revolutionary, which is standard advertising speak for new run of the mill engineering products. Source searches point mostly to the company site or press releases. On its own, a GNG fail, but possibly it should be merged somewhere. My instinct says there are a hundred gearbox variations like this though. It is certainly not a harmonic drive.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete spam. took one look into user's contribution. he's obviously here to promote his own product. Graywalls (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid pushback, I am making no futher edits to the article. However, if someone else would care to do the honours, there have been 2 independent references published in Power Transmission Engineering Magazine: "Pushing Forward with Belts and Chains", Power Transmission Engineering, p. 22, Jun. 2018. "Familiar Goals, New Solutions", Power Transmission Engineering, pp. 24-25, Oct. 2017. In addition I have been invited to present this work at the AGMA Fall Technical Meeting in Oct 2019 so additional references are forthcoming. --Cookinleo (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irai Anbu[edit]

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

This has been tagged for several issues and not solved yet. Its references rely on own publication of this user. It is like advertisement. A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete glorified cv. The refs provided do not support a single claim in the article but are just publishing details of his various books. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ontar[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:MarkZusab with the following rationale " I believe notability may possibly exist and this article could be improved. Feel free to take to AfD. I may do it myself if necessary.". I am afraid this is nonetheless just a wisful WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. My WP:BEFORE on GScholar/Books/News failed to find any coverage that's in-depth and independent. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Definitely doesn't require its own Wikipedia article and after looking for sources I don't believe there are any which can be used as citations. As a relatively new editor of Wikipedia I found the page linked by the nominator (Signpost Op-Ed) interesting and think that there is definitely no reason to keep this article.ECW03 (talk) 09:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator's reason for deletion, but disagree that the rationale for deprodding was "a wisful WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES". I never stated, or even thought, that I was "confident that sources exist". I stated that notability and sources could "possibly" exist and that I felt this article should be taken to AfD. I never claimed that sources establishing notability existed or asserted claims without proof, which is what WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES states. MarkZusab (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is an essay about an argument to keep an article. This doesn't apply here, as I (the deprodder) never argued that the article should be kept (or that sources must exist). I just wanted it to go to AfD for broader community input instead of a PROD, which would result in significantly less people deciding the fate of an article. MarkZusab (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- another faintly promotional article about a company sourced only to its own website. I can't find anything better. This sort of thing is exactly what PROD was designed to deal with. Reyk _YO! 08:02, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Arena Football League[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and likely simply WP:TOOSOON. Most sources found pertain solely to Rio Grande Valley Dorados (2019–) coming into the league (maybe unsustained WP:NOTNEWS announcements) and some minor WP:ROUTINE game coverage from their local news, but merely mentions what league they are going to play in. There is a single news report about the Austin Wild and several mentions in Mexico City media about the owner of the Mexicah team (but they are strictly just mentions that he is launching a team). I cannot find any reliable source as to what teams are even members, most appear to be travel-only semipro teams used so the two or three pro teams have someone to play against. Even the WP:PRIMARY website lacks info as the Lagartos team may-or-may-not be members with only one game played/scheduled. Yosemiter (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article in its current state is lacking in third party articles, there are a number that can be found with a basic search in bona fide news outlets. The league itself is, from what I can tell, worthy of at least a stub. I have no opinion on the connected articles about the teams in the league.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know sports teams aren't subject to WP:NORG, but are leagues? There are quite a few "new league being founded" articles for the Austin team and the Rio Grande Valley team, several of them appear to be press releases/insignificant, and there's one article about one of the games that was played. Since the teams have a longer history than the league, the articles appear to be about the teams more than the league. There was an MSN article that appeared in one of my searches that appeared to be about the league but clicking on it led to a video about a school shooting. In short, I don't know what to do here - does coverage of the teams in the league count towards the league's notability? SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: That is kind of why I put off nominating this one, the two teams (and maybe Mexicah) get more coverage than the league itself. Almost all are "Team X played/announced/did something, who happen to play in the IAFL, yadda yadda yadda..." The main reason I did go with the AfD route: I cannot find any reliable sources that state who the other members are. This Facebook post indicates the Longhorns are an "affiliate", but the main league website makes no mention of what an affiliate is. The Lagartos played one away game and have no other games scheduled (and forums say they folded), but I can find no sources that mention membership other than they are listed on primary website and that they played an IAFL team in RGV. Yosemiter (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, it's really poorly sourced in that regard. The standings page of the league's website doesn't inspire confidence, either. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The good news is, the BYE week is in 4th place. Too bad Playoff Winner 1 is in 9th. Yosemiter (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Arena League or delete unless proper independent sources are found. This type of organization seems to fit within NORG or GNG guideline, and sources are required for it to be notable in a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: This league is not mentioned in that article right now and only one of the three apparently active IAFL teams ever played any games in that league (3 total games and a forfeit win). Not sure where it would really fit into that article other than the one Austin Wild sentence in American Arena League#Former AAL members. The last line for the Wild would then read "Withdrew from the league after the 2018 season and formed the International Arena Football League with teams based in Texas and Mexico". (That is about the only sourceable fact about this league anyways.) Yosemiter (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't find a logical reason for that merge. What would be the reasoning? Did the organizations merge or one acquire the other?--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was a business entity, sometimes we merge subsidiaries to parent companies. A cursory reading of the article gave me the impression that AAL is a parent organization/league. If it is not, and there's no such parent body identified, delete this for failing NORG. Sportcruft, stats-only, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Paul McDonald or merge with one of the teams. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources. James-the-Charizard (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @James-the-Charizard: per WP:XY merging with one of the teams, when at least two seem to have some GNG-level coverage, is typically not accepted. As for keep, which of the independent sources do you consider in-depth coverage? The longest comment about the actual league comes from this source, which says only: "Higgins, who doubles as the co-owner of the Austin Wild indoor football team, has teamed up with owners of teams across Texas and two teams from south of the border, Mexico City and Tampico, to form the International Arena Football League". From this, we have a single sentence of coverage in a source. Everything else are less than a paragraph as we;ll or just mentions: "play in the International Arena Football League, a new league that will have its inaugural season this year...Vipers(sic) have a 10-game schedule for the 2019 season; seven of the games at home. The Dorados will play their opening game at 7 p.m., Monday, March 7 against the San Antonio Knights. Other teams in the league include the Austin Wild, Tamaulipas-Mexico Lagartos, Houston, the Temple Demons and Mexico City Mexicah" (some of which is incorrect, such as no Houston team ever came to pass, it never got off the ground), "most notably for the Mexico City-based International Arena Football League, which is scheduled to begin play this year" (also incorrect, not Mexico City-based), or " Conde Ochoa... who also owns the Mexicah team, which plays in the IAFL-International Arena Football League of the United States", etc. Yosemiter (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yosemiter: I see your point, and the league does lack sources. Sorry for my dumb answer. James-the-Charizard (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry about it, I say dumb ideas all the time. That's how we get to the good ones!--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, true. None of are perfect. James-the-Charizard (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it was dumb, and a little healthy debate about the interpretation of "significant coverage" never hurts to look into. Yosemiter (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going delete on this per my analysis above. SportingFlyer T·C 02:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaydachuk Sergiy Anatoliyovych[edit]

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

no clear evidence of notability. Based on Google translation of the references, there are no substantial sources, just various publicity and press releases. A considerable part of the article seems to be taken directly from the English translation of ref. 13. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article really needs some improvements and in some sentences it lacks of grammar accuracy. Nevertheless, the person described in the article is quite significant and famous in business and civic sphere in Ukraine and Europe. That’s why it’s notability, to my mind, shouldn’t be questioned. For example, the pages about Vasyl Stolyar or Leonid Komskyi have no more notability than the discussed article, but they are published on Wikipedia. Kacyblackmo ( talk ) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stolyar is president of FC Volyn Lutsk, and that's probably enough for notability, considering the intense coverage WP (rightly or wrongly) gives to football ; Komsky is more doubtful. There are tens of thousands of bios in WP accepted when standards were lower that ought to be removed; it will take years to get them all, butthe least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is significant enough though it lacks source like forbes.com or bloomberg.com I've also made some edits and improved grammar mistakes.Bodiadub (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A search brings out nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. --Tataral (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Seshu[edit]

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

There are no sources that establish notability for the subject. Since the subject is a freelance journalist, she is probably writing for several news agencies and online media platforms. Most of the Google search results are author pages (like user-pages) on several sites, but not about the subject itself. There are other sources which mention her, but don't meet, WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" KCVelaga (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I added some more sources. The Hoot is a media watchdog in India. She is a senior journalist and there is coverage as well as articles on important subjects. I will add to the page. Sparebug (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Blocked sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vidyutblogger. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not cross the threshold of WP:Notability (people) specifically WP:JOURNALIST. When I see several references I have a certain amount of questioning why there is an AFD. Initially discounting the Hoot the subject worked for I just randomly picked Medianama (Subtitle: Can self-regulation even work?) that supports content "She is an influential voice on media in India.". There is zero mention in the source that I could find to back up the puff words. Adding content and irrelevant sources to bolster notability is original research. I next looked at references for "Geeta is a prominent supporter of rights of women journalists and vocal about threats to them.". The first reference "Newslaundry" is nothing more than a laundry list of news captions. Apparently the subject did not stand out as I missed any mention after scrolling down for a good while. The second source "Rana Ayyub on global list of journalists under threat: Abuse of those pursuing truth must be stemmed with govt action" centers on journalist and author Rana Ayyub and the subject did make comments on threats to journalists. It also stated the subject was a former consulting editor for Hoot and co-founder of the "Free Speech Collective". #1 of NJOURNALIST (1- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors) would be coverage by peers writing on her like she did Rana Ayyub. I could not corroborate being co-founder of "Free Speech Collective" that might be important enough to pass WP:JOURNALIST #3 and possibly #2. A subject just being a journalist is not notable. The number of full time journalists in India alone would be staggering with over 100,000 registered papers and considering free-lance the numbers could be over 2 million journalists world-wide (ex. 83,000 in the US, 84,000 in the UK, and 100,000 in Italy) so there needs to be clear indication the subject is "worthy of notice" more than just being put on a list. --- Otr500 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 17:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Korean War#Battle of Inchon (September 1950). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UN Offensive, 1950[edit]

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

UN Offensive, 1950 is just a very brief precis of what happened between the Battle of Inchon and the Chinese intervention with a large focus on air operations. It says it was all one offensive, when there were actually 2/3 distinct phases: the breakout from the Pusan Perimeter (16-22 September) which is covered in Pusan Perimeter Offensive; the pursuit of the North Koreans out of South Korea (23-30 September) which is covered in UN September 1950 counteroffensive and then the pursuit into North Korea which is covered in UN offensive into North Korea. UN Offensive, 1950 is like a brief extract from the main Korean War page UN forces cross partition line (September–October 1950) section and so its usefulness has passed. As most of UN Offensive, 1950 doesn't have inline references no useful information is salvageable Mztourist (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Whilst it is a thing, it reads like someoens term essay, and moreover just duplicates that we have already (and that is better written) in the parent article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Korean War, targeting a section like Battle of Inchon (September 1950) or a combined section containing that section and the sections immediately after it as subsections. That way people looking for an overview can find a overview, those looking for a part can find the main article on that part and if there's anything worth copying its preserved in revision history. Coverage seems much better in the new articles created by Mztourist and for that matter, the sections in Korean War, so there isn't really much point in having this article as it stands. If someone wants to spin-out a proper overview article (with sections and everything) in the future, they can easily do so with consensus on the talk page. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Korean War; otherwise, not reason to keep as a stand alone article; a bit of a content fork and redundant information. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Korean War, not much useful here. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solas (liturgical group)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Modesty Blaise. Randykitty (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modesty Blaise Quarterly[edit]

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

Article about a series of comic book reprints (unsourced for at least a decade). Google search suggests the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NB. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why not merge to Modesty Blaise? The table in this article, and other tables in the Modesty Blaise article, could be made collapsible if the page is thought too long. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (change as nominator): Agree with RebeccaGreen’s point above. The reprints section of the Modesty Blaise article would be be perfectly suitable for this. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:40, 1 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) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - seems very clear to me it should go in the reprints section of the Modesty Blaise article since it exists. Meszzy² (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Modesty Blaise per RebeccaGreen, Meszzy². Mosaicberry (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per the arguments above. Dunarc (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article about reprints should go into existing section about reprints in main article. Definitely recommend making the table collapsible though; the Modesty Blaise page already has a lot of long tables. Userqio (talk) 00:38, 10 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 Draftify. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Busch (baseball)[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:NBASE. Most sources are primary or routine (college bios, watchlists, etc.) GPL93 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Busch is a well known college baseball player. He is considered a top prospect for this years MLB draft. There have been many reliable documents written about Busch and this should be kept. Thanks, UNC2 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also potentially a case of WP:TOOSOON. Cubbie15fan (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see this article, and the one from The Daily Tar Heel in the article, but that's about it. Doesn't seem extensive enough for WP:GNG and he doesn't meet WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply doesn't pass WP:NBASEBALL or WP:NCOLLATH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fits criteria, this is needed, and sources that are reliable included.2600:1004:B05D:F583:D1AA:A002:9EA2:70FB (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic for a first edit, 2600. GPL93 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More has been add including more reliable sources please reconsider after new changes. Thanks, UNC2 (talk) 03:12, 7 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) 05:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. He certainly might be notable in the future, but for me it’s just too soon right now. He doesn’t satisfy any of the criteria at WP:NBASEBALL. As for reliable sources that are truly independent of the subject, I only found this, this and this. Not enough, in my view, to satisfy the wp:gng. Zingarese talk · contribs 18:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Don't believe the coverage is non-routine enough to meet the GNG and he fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL.Sandals1 (talk) 15:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More has been add including more reliable sources please reconsider after new changes. Thanks, UNC2 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UNC2: maybe WP:DRAFTIFY until after the draft this year? Even if he’s selected it’s not a guarantee he’ll meets GNG, especially if he’s not a top 10 pick, if he signs the article could be included on his teams list of minor league players. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: I have read the directions but it seems I’m not able to move the page to draft. If you could for me that would be great. Thanks, UNC2 (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ballard[edit]

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

Article has a lot of content but no reference list. When looking for sources I couldn't find any independent secondary sources, so it seems to me the article doesn't pass notability criteria for inclusion at WP:BASIC. Even if he is notable a lot of this articles content seems like it'd be difficult to verify. Meszzy² (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:40, 1 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) 05:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking for sources I could not find any that could be used as citations in the article and most mentions of him were related to Pantomime but only mentioned him in passing. Like the nominator I think it would be difficult to verify any/most of the information in the article effectively. ECW03 (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to comments above, not notable. 132.185.161.125 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much to go on re references or reliable sources. Appears to be a glorified CV and self promotion. Interesting page here. Perhaps Martin under a different name. UK Wiki User (talk) 12:34, 11 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 On the Waterfront. Randykitty (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I coulda been a contender[edit]

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

Article about a film quote -- yeah, that one -- which is basically as close as a quotation can get to WP:DICDEF. This was a stable redirect to On the Waterfront for five years, before getting spun off into a standalone article two days ago -- but what it's still lacking is an obvious reason why it actually needs a standalone article at all, because this adds no new context or sourcing that wasn't already in the film's article anyway. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of quotations -- so for this quote to warrant its own separate article independently of the film, it would require quite a lot more substance and sourcing than has even been attempted here.
This should be redirected back to On the Waterfront, though I'd prefer the delete-and-then-redirect approach so that there's no revertable version in the edit history for the dicdef stans to editwar over. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. Few movie quotes have become iconic enough to merit standalone articles. This isn't one of them, possibly because most people haven't seen On the Waterfront. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per all of the above. Shearonink (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or more specifically, as Bearcat says, delete-and-then-redirect. It is one of the most well known lines in film history (#3 on AFI list). When I reviewed it a few days ago, I noticed that the original redirect had a notation that at least that editor thought it deserved an article at some point. A search turns up hundreds of references (which you would expect of an iconic movie line - but how in-depth they are I didn't look into), I checked about 20, and most are simple mentions, but a few like New York City English, do go a bit in depth about it. In the end I felt that the article could be expanded. Most of the articles in the top 20 of AFI's list are redirects: I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse, Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore., Here's looking at you, kid. (redirected after an AfD discussion), All right Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up, May the Force be with you, I love the smell of napalm in the morning, E.T. phone home, I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore, Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. You talkin' to me? and What we've got here is failure to communicate were both merged after discussion. Three, Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn, Go ahead, make my day, and Love means never having to say you're sorry actually have their own article (although one of those is virtually unsourced and probably be turned into a redirect). I had hoped the editor who created the article would expand it, but Bearcat's correct, in its current incarnation, simply not enough there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per nomination and onel5969. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added sections. The one who creates pages (talk) 17:01, 11 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirumal[edit]

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

It is duplicate article for Vishnu. Thirumal/Perumal is just another name for Vishnu regional to Tamil Nadu. As per WP:NOTDIC, this article can be deleted aggi007 (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important subject in Vaishnavism in South India.[1][2][3] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pongr[edit]

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

Promotional article written by a now-block advertising-only/WP:COI account (see original linkspam report here. Nearly all of the references in the article are press releases, local corp coverage in Boston or trivial mentions (e.g., being mentioned as a partner in a promotional campaign). There are a few that are borderline passing for WP:RS, but none of those have significant depth of coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are mostly junk. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Enigma Party[edit]

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

Article does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website and what appears to be brief mentions of its existence. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The subject is not notable but it cannot stand as an independent article, so it would be better to merge on a related article.Hispring (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hispring, what would be your suggested merge target? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:DP mentioned, deleting is the last solution and I prefer alternative ones. Also NYT mentioned this party, actually I know it is not an independent source.Hispring (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I asked. Do you have a merge target in mind? Voting merge without a target in mind is not helpful for the closer. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in the absence of any reliable sources or claim to actual significance. No suitable merge target. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Working Families Party[edit]

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

Article does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website and what appears to be brief mentions on existence. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Working Families Party. Toa Nidhiki05 01:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Party of Washington State[edit]

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

Article does not have any real sourcing aside from what appears to be brief mentions on existence. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party of Maryland[edit]

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

Article does not have any real sourcing and there is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Ralph Nader 2004 presidential campaign. Toa Nidhiki05 01:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Conservative Party[edit]

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

Article does not have any real sourcing and there is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. It is also defunct. Toa Nidhiki05 01:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not appear to be defunct. 10,610 members as of February 2019 (https://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/assets/pdf/svrs-reports/2019/2019-03-voter-registration-by-county.pdf.) Djflem (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Djflem has done a great job of updating the article and adding sources, i think it is worth to keep the article! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the article appears to be improved on the surface, I don’t think the sources added qualify as significant, non-trivial coverage. Most of them are the number of registered voters - which is an acknowledgement that a party exists, not significant coverage - as well as several sources for lawsuits filed by the party. However, they are not independent coverage, but public records of the filed lawsuits. Sources 21 and 22 are press releases of the party - self-published sources. There are a few articles from the New York Times covering it as a local matter and more of an oddity than anything, but I don’t think those qualify - and regardless, there’s been no coverage since the 1996 election, where they failed to elect any candidates and received only a small percentage of the vote. I just don’t think this qualifies as substantial, non-trivial coverage: the reporting was more so on the quixotic nature of third parties in general imo. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding tons more information about this party (which I previously had never heard of) via Newspapers.com. This topic is proving to meet GNG. I'm including relevant histories and references now... those interested in building the page may find additional information in the free access clippings I'm adding to all my references. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of Wyoming[edit]

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

Article does not have any real sourcing and there is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Libertarian Party (United States). Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latino-Vote Party[edit]

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

Article has no sources except to its own website, the elections directory of Massachusetts, and one website that ran a short piece. There is no evidence that this party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 01:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Citizens Party[edit]

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

Article has no sources except to its own website and the elections directory of Massachusetts. There is no evidence that this party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for anything someone just made up. Reywas92^Talk 22:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appear to have been several World Citizens Parties going back to the 1970s, but if this one is limited to Massachusetts as the article claims, then it is none of those. SpinningSpark 22:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vastavikta Pandit[edit]

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

Actress who appears to be a combo of possibly too soon/not inherited issue. Having trouble finding sources for her that are not wiki mirrors or about her father. Also has only done a couple films it appears. Wgolf (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gorō Hobo[edit]

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

Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography or Photography in Japan 1853-1912.

I have also checked his Japanese name, but all I found was the Tokyo Digital Museum listing of his works, and references to the 328 Photographers book. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted.

Courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and whose commentary on these AfDs is invaluable to me, especially when it causes me to alter my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gorō Hobo (born Gorō Ōbayashi) is one of the more obscure of the 328 photographers: the entry for him in that book is only about one third of the average length. It would be possible to create an article about him, but difficult. As there is no Japanese photography completist working in en:WP, I can't foresee anyone creating an article. However, I wouldn't want to deter anybody from doing so. ~~Therefore delete without prejudicing any later attempt to create a worthwhile article.~~ -- Hoary (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC) deleted conclusion; see below -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and/or TNT delete The article as is contains no information except for birth and death years and his profession, which is not enough to hang a standalone article on. He appears to have an entry on page 363 of this book, which according to the snippet view fully verifies the content of our article, but a short entry in a 500-page book of Japanese photographers does not really meet with my oft-stated quite broad notability criterion of having a standalone entry in a general encyclopedia. If the article is more detailed than the snippet implies, then I guess it would be sufficient, but that's a job for whoever picks up the book. Alternatively, redirect to List of photographers#Japan -- every single piece of information in this article could easily be incorporated there. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai it says that all these articles were created by a bot with the same wording, which appears to be rooted in a mistranslation -- Outstanding is not in the Japanese title, and nor is "renowned"; this means that of the four pieces of information in the article, three are basic statistics that would be better included in a list, and one is wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, they were all made by Polbot back in 2007; I've been working through a subset that were in the Feb 09 orphans list. There's a more comprehensive, if somewhat outdated, list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography/History of Photography/Japanese photographers if you have any interest in the matter. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to some of Hijiri 88's comments. First, "my oft-stated quite broad notability criterion of having a standalone entry in a general encyclopedia": this surely can't be a necessary criterion of notability (general encyclopedias are for the general public, who have little or no interest in photographers of anything other than the celebrated or "beautiful"). If it's a sufficient criterion of notability, fair enough -- but trying to apply it in this area would be a waste of one's time. Secondly, yes, Hobo does indeed have an entry in the book to whose Google Books entry you point. The book is ISBN 4816919481; it's a particularly dry encyclopedia of Japanese photographers born before 1930. Its entry for Hobo really doesn't say enough for the construction of a decent article -- but then few if any of its entries do. (Rather, it's useful as a guide to further reading. Incidentally, its counterpart for newer photographers is ISBN 481691949X, which has entries for Japanese photographers either born after 1929 or born earlier but still active.) Thirdly, the "328" book -- like the two reference books I've just mentioned -- has an alternative title (but nothing else) in English. This is "328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers", and I suppose that this is where Quadell (currently dormant operator of [moribund] Polbot) got the notion of outstandingness. Not that I'd defend the use of this word in this context. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would consider 日本写真家事典 to be a general encyclopedia, in that it doesn't appear to have been written for specialists in the field -- I definitely consider 日本古典文学大辞典 to be a general encyclopedia for the same reason. However, it would depend on the length of the article the former work has on this person. Obviously we can't keep our article on him as it is now, so I say either TNT delete or redirect. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would, I think, be hard, perhaps impossible, to create an article on Hobo of more than three or four sentences. And I don't know of anybody who'd be willing to give it a try. But that's not the reason why I say delete this as one of a set of sub-stubs that haven't been significantly improved/augmented since Polbot created them without prejudicing any later attempt to create decent articles on any of these people. The history of this particular non-article is a sorry indicator of how much time has already been wasted over these things (and how much more is likely to be wasted as MoS requirements and similar continue to change). Apologies if this offends the ever-benevolent and -courteous PMC, but this AfD is just one of what would otherwise be a continuing series of time-wasting AfDs. In the time I've already spend on this one, I could have written an honest (if short and feeble) little article on Hobo myself; and I'm sure that PMC, Hijiri88, Captain Raju and other contributors to this could similarly have spent their time more constructively. Looking at Google's list of "renowned Japanese photographer[s]", I notice for example Keiichirō Gotō: now there's a fellow who really merits an article and about whom a good article could be written; however, the existence of the current sub-stub for him would frustrate anybody hoping to read about him and is highly unlikely to prompt anyone to transform it into an article; its deletion should do nothing to dissuade anyone from later creating a worthwhile article about him. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC) minuscule typo corrected Hoary (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you feel I've wasted your time with this AfD, and others before it. I do try to make a reasonable effort to find sources, and to improve any of the ones I can find sourcing for (even if it's just to add a single sentence). If you'd rather, I can stop pinging you - I started because you know about the topic and I respect your opinion, but I wouldn't take offense if you asked me not to in future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, perhaps I didn't express myself well. PMC, your conduct is exemplary ... given that these dreary sub-stubs deserve individual attention. But they don't. They -- the sub-stubs -- aren't notable. I don't mean by this that their subjects aren't notable. I'd call few if any of the people "outstanding", but I think that most are notable. Consider a distinctly notable example, whether in the abstract, or concretely with Keiichirō Gotō. How does the sub-stub help the user of Wikipedia, help the would-be improver of the article, or inspire somebody to improve the article? My guess: not at all. If ever so slightly, then still not enough to make repeated discussions worthwhile, for you, for me, for anybody. So that's why I now want to nuke the lot, regardless of the notability of their subjects. I do appreciate the effort you've continued to put into this: the conscientiousness, the courtesy, the patience. But this is effort that you could use elsewhere. [Warning: digression follows.] I don't suppose that Japanese photography is one of your major interests; however, if you'd like to spend a little more time on Japanese photography, you'd be very welcome to do so. An example of a wretched (but not utterly vapid) stub about Japanese photographer is Issei Suda. (The reason why I feel entirely free to be rude about it is that it's my creation.) Now, Suda's work is fascinating (to me, at least) and you might enjoy exploring it. Until recently, he was almost unknown outside Japan (and therefore in any language other than Japanese), but recently good material about him in English has started to appear. And Suda is just one example; I shouldn't assume that your tastes and mine are similar. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Premeditated Chaos: With one-sentence substubs like this, I wonder if proactive BOLD merging wouldn't be a better idea. List of photographers is a bare index of names at the moment, and I think it would be better to at least add the dates. Doing so, though, would make what we have here a useless content fork (readers would click of a list that notes his nationality, birth and death dates, to find an article that gives the exact same info in a less efficient manner). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of photographers is pretty much useless right now. For better or worse, what one can say about it is that it's a list of links to articles. (But interestingly, it started a very long time ago as a list of photographers who merited articles but who for the most part still lacked them.) If you start (or restart) adding the names of people who don't have articles, then I think you'd open the door to all sorts of optimistic/spammy additions. -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: Hmm... how about if we applied my criterion to entries on that list (if the subject can be verified to have an entry in an encyclopedic work on the topic, he/she can have an entry in that list)? Theoretically, forcing editors of the list to include more than a just a name, and requiring sources to verify all information included, would prevent individuals about whom nothing can be written from being included. Obviously no one is arguing that Hobo is not noteworthy enough for inclusion in a list of (Japanese?) photographers. (As a loosely related aside, I recently nominated List of Man'yōshū poets for FLC, and virtually every entry on the list is linked because even if we know nothing about the life of this or that poet, anyone who had at least one poem included in that collection has had their poetry scrutinized by dozens or hundreds of scholars over the centuries, but at FLC I was told that having a lot of red links was an automatic fail, and was told that unlinking them would be gaming the system if I thought the people were notable, so I've spent much of the last month creating stubs out of the red links; my own standards prevent me from leaving a one-sentence sub-stub that consists of information forked from the list I already compiled. If I thought "articles" like the present one were acceptable the job would be a helluva lot easier. (笑) ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather bewildered. In your opening sentence, what's "that list"? If List of photographers, then let's discuss the matter in Talk:List of photographers. (See particularly "What's it for?") If instead it's what I called above "a set of sub-stubs that haven't been significantly improved/augmented since Polbot created them", then each of these has an entry in the (compact) encyclopedic work that's alternatively titled "328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers". -- Hoary (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Talk:List of photographers. Sorry for the confusion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one and any others on Hoary's list that only say "was a renowned Japanese photographer" with but one source. Articles with more than that should be looked at. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I haven't bundled these articles ever is because a big pile of them got WP:TRAINWRECKed previously by another editor, and I don't want a repeat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry (though not surprised) to hear this. Could you point us to the particular AfD(s)? -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the actual nom... Hey StraussInTheHouse, not to dredge up old history, but do you remember where your Japanese photographers trainwreck was? I know you commented about it on another of my Japanese photographer AfDs but I can't find the actual AfD for the life of me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos, I've looked through all of my AFDs using afdstats for "DrStrauss" and "StraussInTheHouse" and I can't find it either. However, I can confirm for Hoary that I mass-nominated several permastubs of Japanese photographers which were sourced by only one book and that deletion discussion resulted in a trainwreck. Everyone remembers their first trainwreck hehe. SITH (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. Well, thanks for looking, anyway. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add their name and the source to a new list of red linked photographers similar to WikiProject Women in Red/Photographers. I agree that there is a lot of energy being sucked into these articles with only one independent reliable source, that could better be spent on the articles themselves. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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