Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Vandenberg[edit]

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

This non-notable subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Source searches are only providing name checks and fleeting passing mentions in independent, reliable sources. No significant coverage in said sources appears to exist. Additionally, the article is entirely dependent upon primary and unreliable sources, which do not confer notability. Primary sources found in searches also do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a reference from the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History a respected encyclopedia edited by multiple scholars.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History is a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church. Primary sources such as these do not serve to establish notability. Furthermore, multiple sources are required to establish notability, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history is not a primary source. We have never acceptaed that the published of a book can be used to determine if it is primary or secondary. With books, one needs to look at the whole nature of the production. This is a book with listed authors who are respected scholars in the field and you cannot reclassify it as a primary source just because of who the publisher is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we disagree about the independence of the source. However, as stated above, multiple sources are required to establish notability, not just one. From source searches, it just doesn't seem that the subject has received any coverage that is not somehow affiliated with the LDS church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm leery about considering sources that are ultimately published by the organization as reliable secondary sources in situations like this. They can definitely be useful when adding biographical details after notability is established but I don't particularly believe that these sources make a good case for notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When your job is your notability yet we can’t get any independent sources about you then are you really notable? Trillfendi (talk) 17:54, 8 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. In fact, seems to only exist as an act of self-promotion by a now-banned user. PepperBeast (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Although google books turns many results, most, if not all, self-published. Only one news report mention in a local newspaper. Sources used in the article unverifiable. Funny though, one sources used is actually a letter to the editor of a newspaper by this Sheikh Mohammad Iqbal ;) Clear self-promotion. Article created by the subject himself. Recently blocked for book-spamming. AhmadLX (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G12 - almost entirely a copyvio - earwig. If someone does a major cleanup - and if his webpage is correct regarding amount of publications - book publication list - he might quite possibly be notable per WP:NAUTHOR. Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NAUTHOR wouldn't apply even then: 1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors? → no. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique? → No. 3. Created well-known work, with multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? → No. 4.The person's work won significant critical attention? → No. AhmadLX (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a mere publication list doesn't establish NAUTHOR - however when someone has authored 36 books over 62 years - it is quite possible. Possible - not certain. Icewhiz (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:01, 6 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daylight Linux[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. There is a very, very brief mention in Linux Today, but that's the only third-party source I could find, and is lacking in depth and is likely just a press release blurb more than anything. The article does have a DistroWatch listing, but given that you can simply buy a DistroWatch listing, that doesn't help show notability. Aoidh (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not have notability, its a hobby project. Editor-1 (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could only find a very small mention in MakeUseOf; this and the Linux Today mention isn't enough to pass GNG or NSOFT. Sunmist (talk) 09:24, 8 February 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) DannyS712 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard de Beer[edit]

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

De Beer has not played a regular season game for a professional sports team (fails WP:GRIDIRON), was a non-notable college offensive tackle who was not drafted (fails WP:NCOLLATH), and is otherwise a non-notable person (fails WP:GNG).

All of the mentions of him in the news fall into routine pieces about a person trying to make it in professional sports. The only possible exception I found is this ESPN article. I would argue that his South African roots and previous discus/track experience does not alone make him notable. These items would only become relevant if he plays a professional game, thus adding him to a small list of unique NFL players with this background. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nomination. MarkH21 (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to Keep after being shown to meet WP:GNG. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For disclosure, I promoted this at AfC. I agree De Beer does not qualify under WP:GRIDIRON, however, believe he has obtained WP:SIGCOV of a non WP:ROUTINE nature in WP:RS spanning a period of years and, therefore, meets the WP:GNG. Specifically:

Gartland, Dan (October 17, 2017). "Arizona's 320-Pound Discus Champion Lineman Wants to Be a Punter". Sports Illustrated.
Bonagura, Kyle (November 3, 2017). "Gerhard de Beer, Arizona's 315-pound, discus-throwing wanna-be punter". ESPN.
"The big meneer from Pretoria on the road to NFL stardom". The Citizen. May 2, 2018.
Feltham, Luke (May 4, 2018). "Meet Gerhard De Beer, SA's aspiring NFL star". Mail & Guardian.
Gaughan, Mark (May 27, 2018). "Bills rookie tackle Gerhard de Beer has Olympic-sized natural talent". Buffalo News.
Rodak, Mike (February 1, 2018). "Gerhard de Beer continúa su transición del disco al fútbol americano". ESPN.
Roth, Leo (August 2, 2018). "Bills rookie guard Gerhard de Beer ate 8,000 calories per day to make his college team". Democrat & Chronicle.

Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, while I appreciate that he has appeared in some articles over about a year period, all of the one's you point to are routine profiles of a college athlete about his pursuit to the NFL. It really comes down to the question "does someone become notable for trying to get to the NFL just because they come from a country that doesn't routinely provide NFL players?" (in this case South Africa). In my opinion, until he makes it to the NFL, he is just another aspiring college athlete with a somewhat unique background. For every aspiring professional athlete that makes it, there are hundreds who don't, a lot of whom have coverage about their pursuit. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Two of the above articles are from South African newspapers, which do not routinely profile American football players. Profiles in the U.S. newspapers are not draft season articles and are therefore also, in my opinion, not routine for the type of graduating college player profiles we typically see. All of the articles are deep biographical treatments and, in that sense, I think are also non-routine for the type of college-to-pros coverage we typically see which is usually limited to draft round predictions, and so forth. Chetsford (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is a strange mistress. First, the article doesn't violate any policy that I can see/ And no, the notability is not achieved through being an active NFL player because he hasn't done that yet. Normally, notability is not achieved by being on the practice squad. Most college football players are not notable either. What makes this player notable? A clear pass of WP:GNG does it for me. For some reason--for whatever reason or reasons--there is significant coverage of the individual in reliable third party news sources. Is it because his last name is "de Beer" and that makes people joke about "de Brewski" ?? Doesn't matter... what matters is the coverage is there. We as editors do not set out to "choose" what is notable or "use our vast wisdom" to deem something notable or "get to decide" because that's personal preference (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Wikipedia:Notability is not a matter of opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jesus Christ. “Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game” is the first rule of NGRIDIRON and he couldn’t even manage to do that. “He’s South African” is not notability! You can have all the “coverage” in the world but you have to actually play the goddamn sport professionally. Trillfendi (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"You can have all the “coverage” in the world but you have to actually play the goddamn sport professionally." - NGRIDIRON is a notability test for subjects who fail the GNG. A person who had "all the coverage in the world" but never played the sport professionally would indeed qualify for an article under the General Notability Guidelines. Conversely, a subject who had played the sport professionally but was only mentioned once in a 1932 issue of the Des Moines Register would fail the GNG but qualify under NGRIDIRON. Chetsford (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General notability for not even playing his sport? For a potential career? Makes no sense. General notability still has to be for something. File this one under WP:TOOSOON. Trillfendi (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our general notability guidelines (WP:BASIC) say that: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[ and independent of the subject. That's the only requirement of GNG; personal or professional success is not a requirement under our general notability guidelines. Whether or not it makes sense, that's our policy. Chetsford (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABELINCOLN never played football professionally either, but that's no reason to delete the article about him. There is more than one path to notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ABELINCOLN is simply an opinion... dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

missing your point... ??? What do you mean by that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a good amount of discussion above about WP:ROUTINE but it does not apply here. WP:ROUTINE is a part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) and the subject here is not an event but a person -- therefore we go to Wikipedia:Notability (people) and its sub-guideline WP:BASIC.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:GNG and prong 3 of WP:NCOLLATH. Significant coverage in national media outlets like Sports Illustratedand ESPN.com, as well as international coverage in South Africa. This type of coverage is not even remotely WP:ROUTINE. Cbl62 (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. In addition, he very likely meets WP:NCOLLATH #3, too, due to the national and international media attention he has received. I also want to note that the profanity in Trillfendi's "Delete" vote is completely unnecessary and is very much not appreciated. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree there is no place for profanity in this discussion per WP:PROFANEDISCUSSIONS. It doesn't help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 5 February 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lass[edit]

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

not having enough references to qualify for an article, lacking wp:Bio Shringhringshring (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the edit history, there appears to have been a conflict of interest during the creation of the article, but more relevantly the individual does not meet notability criteria; as far as I can tell, he has won no awards, and the independent coverage of him consists solely of his name being mentioned in passing when discussing a piece of music or a musical event. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Seems to also fail WP:GNG. Looking in the history, much of the content on the page has been unsourced since 2013 and what is left is either deadlinks or his own bio. The article also makes claims of notability that I cannot find sources for. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per the improvements to the article by Shaidar cuebiyar and RebeccaGreen. Wording could still be worked on but it has been improved to show he pass our notability crtieria now. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent about an hour looking into this guy, and I can't substantiate any of his claims to the level that he would meet notability guidelines. He say he's had a gold album, but I can't find any evidence of that. He says his album charted on the NAV chart, but that was a New Age Voices magazine list which doesn't qualify under WP:Chart. I also can't find any evidence of him being nominated for a Grammy or an ARIA, despite his claims. The page language is very similar to the language on his website. ManicSpider (talk) 13:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per NoCOBOL.Tamsier (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N not established. Fails WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSICBIO. I have added content and references which support claims of regular TV appearances, at least nine albums (including a US release), reviews of performances/albums, he has won eight consecutive Mo Awards (Australian national awards for live entertainment).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised by the lack of sources considering how ubiquitous he once was. Surely 8 Mos is enough for anyone. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" (has released on EMI, WEA, Fanfare Records, among others), and #8 "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" (8 years of Mo Awards, now referenced, thanks to shaidar cuebiyar ). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Releasing albums and or charting are not notability especially if you have no independent reliable sources to back you up! Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No independent reliable sources? I beg to differ, in what way are the following not reliable: 1. AllMusic review of ninth album. 2. Eight consecutive Mo Awards. 3. Canberra Times reviews. 4. The Sydney Morning Herald reviews. 5. The Age review?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO There are enough referenced, reputable external resources. I believe article can be cleaned up a bit more though. Equine-man (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO. Refs looks ok.BabbaQ (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added to page during this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:43, 5 February 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 Radisson Hotel Group. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country Inn & Suites[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The page history was full of COI and unsourced edits, and not enough reliable source to pass GNG or allow editors to write a full length article about the chain, formerly known as Country Inns & Suites. Also, it seem too much Matryoshka set of articles for a hotel group Matthew hk (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to somewhere. Not enough detailed sources for a standalone article, but is of sufficient note to warrant a mention in another article.--Pontificalibus 07:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be Radisson Hotel Group the current parent company? (the article that currently occupied the article title Radisson Hotel Group, was being RM to its former, original title Rezidor Hotel Group (the licensee of the brand Country Inn, but not a owner), with a new draft was written located here Draft:Radisson Hotel Group. Since Carlson Companies is the former owner, and Radisson Hotels seem about the brand Radisson only, Radisson Hotel Group seem the right place. Matthew hk (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing of note to warrant merging with any other article - it is one single hotel in a massive global hotel chain. None of the references demonstrate notability either and fail WP:NCOR. Topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a single hotel: it's a large hotel chain with over 1300 locations throughout the US. Skirts89 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it did not have 1,300 Country Inns . The previous editors just misinterpreted this source. According to this press release , whole Radisson Hotel Group had 1,400 hotels, which include many hotels under Radisson Blu, Radisson, Radisson Collection, Radisson Red, Park Inn, Park Plaza brands. Matthew hk (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for that clarification - you are correct. However, it looks like there are actually 485 hotels. I think this is significant for a chain. Please see source here: https://www.entrepreneur.com/franchises/countryinnsuitesbyradisson/282249. Skirts89 (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have X number of hotels did not mean it pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG BTW. Matthew hk (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Radisson Hotel Group as it is a part of this chain and is marketed as such. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Trillfendi (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per HighKing. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 13:33, 8 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. @Remagoxer please be more careful when nominating articles for deletion. Although this was closed as a delete, if I had caught it earlier I would have closed it on the grounds of not posting a valid deletion criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem please note I did not nominate this, only voted delete. Remagoxer (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamite Dylan[edit]

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

I do not recognise "Dynamite Dylan" because, he is too young. Banana19208 (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is your honest rationale "he's too young"? But I think there is a lack of RSs so delete. Remagoxer (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete His age has nothing to do with it. The problem is lack/quality of sources. Most of them are junk, but he does have a reasonably notable profile in Billboard, but the fact it is an interview consisting of him talking about his aspirations gives me pause. Plus he does have a top 40 digital download appearance, albeit in collaboration with another artist. For this reason, it is a "weak" delete. A few more decent example of reliable source coverage could get me to change my mind. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: regardless of his age, he fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:MUSICBIO on account of only having the lone Billboard profile and the lone joint top-40 digital download record. MarkH21 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Youells[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:BEFORE shows nothing. -- Flooded. Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 (sig inspired by Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. MarkH21 (talk) 22:25, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Douglas (producer)[edit]

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

I'm not sure that we consider the producer of a notable song to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable music producer. Claim of notability mentioned as per working with notable musicians but not references to back up and no WP:RS available. Searches bring up less than 3 mentions. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:50, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gharaibeh[edit]

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

this tribe is not notable enough in jordan and in Arab world. in addition it has no enough resources to prove notablity and it contains many controversial information without any resources. i think there's a bias in the article because both the creator Dawod (talk · contribs) and Gharaibeh (talk · contribs) who are a major contributors to the article of their tribe and that is clear from the page history مصعب (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We at ar. wiki usually follow strict rules concerning tribes and clans in the Arab world, the only Google results about this tribe seems to be from forums and social media pages that are concerned with this tribe in particular and the northern area of Jordan in general. Thus it doesn't seem to be notable--باسم (talk) 12:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs references Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous colleagues that this is a tribe (clan) like many other tribes, without any significant notability. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original work. --Helmoony (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aigaion[edit]

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

No clear claim to notability. Defunct software project that does not appear to ever have been meaningfully adopted or covered in any reliable sources. Avram (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that this is the second nomination and the first ended in Delete. So perhaps this should just have been speedy-delete. Apologies for the noise if so. Avram (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything with a quick Googling. Not even that it's defunct. (There is a hotel or a place in Greece). The 2006 deletion looked definitive, and the standards were much lower then. If the author could come up with some references I might reconsider. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches indicate some sources for this tool: it was included in a "Comparison of reference management software" table ([1]) and there is also a case study whose pages 6-10 describe installing and using this tool ([2], Scribd and other locations) and also on pages 18-20 of a comparative study. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:36, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genesys Works[edit]

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

non notable organization, promotional and hasn't received any coverage despite their "big name" clients. Praxidicae (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: May be eligible in the future, but it seems like there is very little significant third-party coverage online.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been here for 11 years... Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramez Baassiri[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All coverage that I was able to find was just the promoting the subject's book, of which I can find no independent reviews. Previously nominated for PROD by Willsome429, dePROD by initial editor. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO. None of the sources on page support notability as an author or as a businessman. And none were found in a search. He publishes an occassional short essay, that's all that my searches turned up. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:59, 6 February 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, per various WP:Notability standards met. Subject is influential in her field. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Slessor[edit]

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

non-notable editor, no coverage and only actual hits on her name are pieces she's written. fails gng. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and failure of WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. MarkH21 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revised to Keep on RebeccaGreen's post.~~ MarkH21 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-revised back to Delete after realizing that the Architectural Review is a magazine and not an academic journal, so the subject does not qualify under WP:NACADEMIC #8. MarkH21 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Architectural Review has been published since 1896; Slessor has been its editor (I have just added as a reference 'Catherine Slessor: a trailblazer in male-dominated industries.': "As the editorial torch is passed, we look back at the career of Catherine Slessor and the AR under her leadership." (Tom Wilkinson, The Architectural Review, 2015)). She therefore meets WP:NACADEMIC #8 "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." (She may meet other criteria too, but only one is needed.) Note that WP:NACADEMIC states: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline." The article could certainly be expanded, but the subject does meet notability requirements. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Architectural Review a magazine? It's not an academic journal. MarkH21 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with RebeccaGreen, and IMO, she meet some criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, So my vote was Keep. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the AJ editorship and article. PamD 11:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And per her extensive authorship of books which I'm sure were reviewed in serious newspapers and journals of the time though not easy to find quickly online: I've added a few to the article, with templated ISBNs for sourcing. PamD 11:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have full paid access to newspaper archives and I found absolutely nothing significant about her or her works, in fact, the only lengthy pieces I found were for someone else, unless of course she was born in 1901. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I didn't go through all her books, but I added the reviews that I saw to the article. I think its likely that more reviews exist in journals and newspapers. Thsmi002 (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JOURNALIST. She is an MBE specifically for "services to Architectural Journalism". (p. 80) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyLillith (talk • contribs) 19:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that being an MBE is not typically regarded as significant enough to merit notability. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (awards and honors). MarkH21 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point isn't just that she has an MBE, it's that her work is recognized as so outstanding in her specific field, that it is recognized as such by people/an organization that has nothing to do with her field. Per this, it states "They are now awarded for prominent national or regional roles and to those making distinguished or notable contributions in their own specific areas of activity. The honour of an MBE, in particular, can be given for achievement or service in the community." LovelyLillith (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But recognition by those outside of her field is not one of the points of WP:JOURNALIST, and the MBE itself is insufficient for #1 of WP:ANYBIO.

Regarding the actual criteria of WP:JOURNALIST, I'm not convinced that she's regarded as an important figure in her field by others in her field (#1 in WP:JOURNALIST). She hasn't received any awards for journalism (nor architecture) and the only mentions that anyone can find of her work are

1. an article in the magazine of which she was editor about her leaving the editorship

2. five book reviews (the existence of which do not mean the author is considered important), one in print on "See-through houses" on which I cannot find any other recognition and four on "Eco-Tech" which is self-described as a survey book and which the only digitally-available review calls an "introduction" with "rather limited information on each project."

There simply isn't any evidence of independent recognition within her field that anyone has been able to find. MarkH21 (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a bit confused here as a lot of what's being stated is totally unsubstantiated by independent sources. Virtually nothing that anyone has included is independent (including the piece written by her own colleague.) I would expect for someone so "prominent" in their field, there'd be readily available sources to support such statements. As far as the NACADEMIC claim, I'd suggest revisiting that statement because that's a massive stretch. ~~This is definitely borderline at this point and I'll gladly withdraw but independent sources absolutely need to be added. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)~~striking per MarkH21's evaluation. Praxidicae (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked at Architectural Review again. While it's true that it's not an academic journal, it was indexed by Scopus during the time that Slessor was editor. Many notable people have edited it or contributed to it. It does seem to be an influential and respected publication in the field of architecture and urban design. (I note also that some titles which Wikipedia considers magazines, Scopus considers journals, and vice versa, although that is not the case with Architectural Review). I don't know how we find sources, other than book reviews, from within her field that are totally independent, but there is a tribute to her in another architectural magazine/journal, and, in Architectural Review, tributes from such notable people within her fields (architecture/architectural writing) as Norman Foster, Nicholas Grimshaw, Tom Dyckhoff, Sou Fujimoto, Hugh Pearman, and Roger Zogolovitch. I have found reviews of all four of her books named in the article, and I have added those references. If being a respected editor of a notable magazine is not sufficient, she certainly meets WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quantity & praise of book reviews, citations, etc. would serve as independent sources, my qualm was just with the fact that the magazine article was coming from her magazine (i.e. her employer) which is not independent. The new reviews and these tributes would certainly merit notability by WP:NAUTHOR. I can't see the article containing those tributes though, as the link directs to an Australian government login page. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." I have access through the National Library of Australia; other editors will have access to Ebsco, Gale and other databases through other subscriptions or institutions. I can add some of the words of tribute, though others will still have to WP:AGF that they are actually in the sources quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh certainly, I was just remarking that I cannot personally verify the content of those sources right now. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Architecture Review is a major general interest magazine. in the field. Scopus does cover these sources, as they are sometimes cited in academic work. But the magazine is important enough that the academic or non academic nature doesn't matter for her notability DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rukshana Kapali[edit]

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

Not passing WP:ANYBIO for now. Daiyusha (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails our guidelines for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable activist,fail WP:NPOL. Hninthuzar (talk) 10:56, 2 February 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 Keep. No prejudice to renomination after two months. (non-admin closure) ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 13:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jawad Fares[edit]

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

lack of notability WikiUser658 (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — WikiUser658 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I disagree. You can check that all the references are up-to-date, valid and follow the wikipedia protocol for acceptable references that are to be used in biographies of living people. As you are a new user, I urge you to read wikipedia policies before requesting the deletion or editing of pages. Lebsci (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just some of the english media coverage in 2018 and January 2019:

THIS LEBANESE DOCTOR IS BRINGING HOPE TO THE COUNTRY’S CLUSTER BOMB SURVIVORS: HTTP://WWW.ALMAKTOUMINITIATIVES.ORG/EN/MEE/ARTICLEDETAIL/?ARTICLEURL=THIS-LEBANESE-DOCTOR-IS-BRINGING-HOPE-TO-THE-COUNTRY-S-CLUSTER-BOMB-SURVIVORS

A PIONEERING SCIENTIST, SURGEON, AND RESEARCHER: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/186050e2?page=56

FORBES 30 UNDER 30 EUROPE: https://www.forbes.com/profile/jawad-fares/

FORBES 30 UNDER 30 MIDDLE EAST: https://archives.forbesmiddleeast.com/en/list/arab-30-under-30-class-2018/

ARAB YOUTH PIONEER: http://pioneers.arabyouthcenter.org/en/#pioneers/678

GEN TOP 10 YOUNG SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD: HTTPS://WWW.GENENGNEWS.COM/A-LISTS/TOP-10-UNDER-40-2/

Lebanese doctor makes Forbes' 30 under 30 list!: https://www.the961.com/ranked/lebanese-doctor-makes-30-under-30-list

Lebanese make '30 under 30' list of Forbes MENA: https://www.the961.com/ranked/8-lebanese-make-forbes-mena-30-under-30-list

From Dinosaurs To Bionic Limbs: The 2018 Europe 30 Under 30 In Science And Healthcare: https://www.forbes.com/sites/elliekincaid/2018/01/21/from-bionic-limbs-to-dinosaurs-30-under-30-europe-in-science-and-healthcare/#6ded88f81616

In addition to large coverage once the name is searched for in Arabic: جواد فارس : https://www.google.com/search?oq=%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF+%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3+&q=%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AF%20%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3

Thank you Lebsci (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may well get through the general notability guideline, but does not appear to pass any of the criteria of WP:PROF. He is "only" a postdoctoral fellow, and his citation record, while excellent for someone of his age, doesn't yet seem to be enough for WP:PROF#C1 in this highly-cited field. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Indeed, the subject does get through the general notability guideline. If you check the criteria for WP:PROF, he is requested to meet “only” one of nine criterions. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. WP:PROF#C1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. The subject has developed a medical scale that is widely attributed to him, as evident in Forbes, GEN Bio News, national and international sites. The scale helped solve a major health challenge in treating victims of cluster munitions.Lebsci (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC) — Lebsci (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete a non-notable acdemic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. obviously, the man is notable. He may be a young academic but age is not an issue. His achievements had impact and they speak for themselves. I see no reason for deletion.Danielroberts3 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — Danielroberts3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep. The subject does qualify for WP:GNG, but almost all of the sources are essentially about the fact that he was on Forbes' 30 under 30. The article does seem over-developed and over-detailed for his actual contributions to science. His actual academic achievements are not notable and do not meet WP:PROF given the lack of recognition by the academic community (to which Forbes, Al Maktoum Global Initiatives, etc. do NOT belong). MarkH21 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteness theory[edit]

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

WP:OR. The article starts with a claim that "Whiteness theory is understood as a specific theory in Whiteness Studies". However that article doesn't mention "whiteness theory". In the academic research literature there is some mention of "critical whiteness theory" but that bears little relation to what is discussed here. For example the main part of this article "The Pillars of Whiteness Theory" is not supported, and these pillars appear to have been created by the author of this article. The diagram here is also unsoruced WP:OR. --Pontificalibus 08:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, draftify or redirect to Whiteness studies. Obvious OR essay. b uidhe 16:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and whatever is not OR can be merged into Whiteness Studies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see many academic sources for Whiteness Theory in books and journals - [3][4][5][6][7][8], and it would appear to be something legitimately studied in academia. and should satisfy WP:GNG. The rationale for the AfD is faulty, and any other problems with its content should be dealt with in the article itself and AfD should not be the place to clean up articles. Hzh (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Per WP:IMPERFECT, we should improve the page, not delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm tempted to call for wp:TNT on this due to the numerous issues it is facing. In addition to the identified OR, the article is American-Centric and is pretty much as far from a neutral point of view as you can get. It's possible, from the sources others have provided, that this is a theory notable enough for inclusion here, but I'm not sure that bringing the current article up to spec will be less work than creating a new one from scratch. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. On a little further reflection, I feel the most suitable option would be to move the article to draft space and allow the creator more time to work on it, removing any OR, as well as ensuring the POV is neutral, and then when they feel they have done this they can submit it through AfC for review. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not object to draftifying, with the stipulation that the page go through AfC before being accepted. b uidhe 17:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:09, 1 February 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fraunhofer-Center for High Temperature Materials and Design HTL[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – "Fraunhofer-Zentrum für Hochtemperatur-Leichtbau")

It's doubtful whether this subsidiary unit of one of seventy or so research units of the Fraunhofer Society is independently notable. It gets some routine hits on GNews, and one verifiable hit on GBooks. That short paragraph in ECHT Oberfranken is the closest to independent in-depth coverage I've been able to find. I suggested merging to the main article but that's been rejected by the COI editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Here is my reasoning:
- This article in the Nordbayerischer Kurier, an independent local newspaper in Bayreuth, talks about the impact the fibre pilot plant of the Fraunhofer-Center for High Temperature Materials and Design HTL has on Bayreuth and also cites statements from high-profile people that are no related to Fraunhofer Society (among others Ilse Aigner). Thus, I believe this article meets the primary criteria for notability.
- This article in Springer Professional also talks about our fibre pilot plant. Springer Professional should also meet the primary criteria.
- This article in the Automobil Industrie, a magazine dedicated to the car industry, talks about ceramic brief disks, which we produce.
- This article in the Allgemeine Bauzeitung, a magazine dedicated to all things construction-related, goes in-depth about the security aspects of our building.

The main issue here is that they are in fact all in German, but that should still guarantee Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. All in all, I believe that these articles listed show that Fraunhofer-Center for High Temperature Materials and Design HTL should be kept - given of course that I (or someone else) edit it accordingly.Kub htl (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplayer (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Most if not all the links given here take the meaning of multiplayer in the same context, don't really seem to fit the meaning of "disambiguation". Its more like a see also section. Daiyusha (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’m not sure I follow the deletion rationale. It sounds like you want to delete the dab page for...being a dab page...? I don’t see the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sergecross73, Shouldn't Disambiguation pages be usually for not closely related topics, like for example A page called "Blue" and then writing down "Light Blue", "Dark Blue" and so on inside it is might not qualify for it.This page is kind of similar. Daiyusha (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are for whenever a certain term might refer to multiple articles. There is no need for the subjects not be closely related, just that a user might reasonably expect to find any of the articles listed when searching for "multiplayer". Regards So Why 20:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are for exact name matches. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to WP:OTHERSTUFF, but this doesn't seem any different from Rice (disambiguation), which is the second example at WP:DAB. Multiplayer's primary topic is multiplayer video game, however there are several other topics "multiplayer" could refer to. A another example from WP:DAB is Football (disambiguation) which seems to fit the exact same mold. -- ferret (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The name matching for different articles reasonably means that the disambiguation page should exist! MarkH21 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to Delete upon the realization that almost all of the links are actually redirects or pipes to pages not containing "multiplayer" in the name. MarkH21 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being a prime example of what a dab page is not supposed to be: 100% WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every entry is a WP:PTM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll go away after this but since no one is replying to me I'll ask one last question? Are the deletes for PTM acknowledging that the primary topic for Multiplayer is so strongly associated to multiplayer video game that there is zero confusion or association of multiplayer with the other articles? I disagree, but just want to understand the thoughts here. -- ferret (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. No. What we're saying is that none of the entries are synonymous with "multiplayer". Let me give you an example. Consider the fictitious Abysmal River. If it's an actual river, then that's fine, because someone could say, "There's a bridge crossing the Abysmal to the north." But say it's a community. Then it's no good because people wouldn't normally refer to it as just Abysmal. The point is that people don't commonly refer to any of the entries as just "multiplayer". (Now it may be that the redirect from Multiplayer to Multiplayer video game is questionable, but that's a separate issue.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I see that there are some unacceptable entries in Rice (disambiguation) (e.g. wet rice), which I will now delete or demote to See also. That may have added to your confusion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AFC Asian Cup broadcasting rights[edit]

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

Fail WP:NOTSTATS and creator is currently blocked because they are sockpuppet but G5 not apply here. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 AFC Asian Cup statistics. If you want to improve articles, please consider merging to 2015 AFC Asian Cup#Broadcasting Hhkohh (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independently notable. Could merit a merge/redirect perhaps. Giant Snowman 13:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarre nomination, this clearly isn't a page about statistics, however the topic on broadcasters is already available on 2015 AFC Asian Cup as Hk has pointed out so I don't see the point in keeping this. Govvy (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable and already covered in parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:52, 8 February 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 2015 AFC Asian Cup#Statistics. Main article contains almost everything of relevance, anything else that editors wish to merge can be taken from the page history Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AFC Asian Cup statistics[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 African Cup of Nations statistics, fail WP:NOTSTATS to me. You can consider redirecting per WP:ATD and previous AfD as I mentioned here Hhkohh (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. Goalscorers and other relevant stats can be added to the main article in prose and appropriately referenced. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per consensus here. Giant Snowman 13:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GS, Wikipedia is not suppose to have all this WP:TRIVIA. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nithor Mahbub[edit]

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

Had I seen this when created I'd have tagged it A7/G4 but, in deference to the editors who've touched it since its creation here we are...

No claims of notability, "He is publicly associated with...", "He performs...", "He offers training...", "He works as...", but nothing actually notable. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Existing sources are curious at best, or otherwise don't prove subject's notability. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 18:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's an autobiography, twice deleted before, created and recreated by a user who has now been blocked for sock puppetry. Schwede 66 19:53, 3 February 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 Statistic articles, merge / redirect discipline articles. Stat articles are kept per consensus, discipline articles are redirected to the most appropriate section in the relevant tournament article. Where no such section existed, I have added in the headline stats from the forked article. Editors are encouraged to use page history to add anything additional that is relevant but are warned about excessive / unreferenced stat listing and giving undue weight to any one section Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2002 FIFA World Cup statistics[edit]

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

Following this AFD, I am nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason – WP:NOTSTATS. There is no other cases where statistics for individual tournaments have their own page. List of FIFA World Cup records is sufficient. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - The FIFA World Cup is the biggest international football tournament there is. I think there is scope for a list of records and statistics from each one. – Pee Jay 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 'statistics' articles (as per PeeJay's rationale on coverage) but delete/merge the 'disciplinary record' ones, no need for a separate articles for that. Giant Snowman 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I am straight down voting Keep for the statistics articles, however I think the disciplinary record articles are way too deep and excessive for wikipedia guidelines and inclined to go with delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Statistics pages should cover a fair amount of discipline information anyway. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all World Cup is the biggest international sporting event in the world larger than even Olympics in viewership.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep all all passes WP:NOTSTATS and FIFA World Cup is more important than others but can consider merging the disciplinary articles to the main statistic articles Hhkohh (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – I'm concerned that as these article stand at the moment, that they provide far too much statistical infomation, little to no prose, no context, and just about every stat is unreferenced – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeeJay2K3, though agree with GiantSnowman for merging the disciplinary articles to the main statistic articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reply Ianblair23 I often think some of these regular contributors of the football project vote with their heart. I often wonder if they bother reading the polices or not. For-instance Hhkohh saying keep because all the articles pass WP:NOTSTATS. Except that policy isn't a pass or fail policy, it's meant to explain what Wikipedia shouldn't have and can have. FIFA World Cup is considered a top rated subject and that would include the statistics so I would hardly call that an indiscriminate article. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete or merge disciplinary pages Sigh. These fail WP:NOTSTATS as they stand. But I'm voting "keep" because data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, and these pages could be improved to pass WP:NOTSTATS, especially the coaching sections. I don't think you can do that with the disciplinary stats, though. I used to buy specialised encyclopedias for this exact type of information, which is why I think it's both encyclopedic and improvable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statistics, merge disciplinary - Article 3 of WP:NOTSTATS says we can create a separate article for statistics, I think it means we should not have another page for disciplinary record. In my opinion, these information do not lack context or explanation, so they should be kept, and they usually are too massive to be merged into the main articles. Some other tournament articles which have less statistical details can include them and still be readable, but not FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro ones, unless we choose to remove a major part of these information. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Biggest soccer tournament there is, it's different than a continental competition. This isn't indiscriminate, it's clearly related to a very notable subject. Smartyllama (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statistics/merge disciplinary The stats pages provide a wide range of information about a major event. Many of these stats are excessively granular and could be excised though. The disciplinary stats are also more detailed than necessary and not an independent topic from the rest of the statistics. The By player table should be split into columns like the goalscorers (or we can use discretion to only list those with more than one). Reywas92^Talk 23:42, 5 February 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. N/C, but this article is going straight to BLP/N. It makes painful reading. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Earlier the page was CREATED as Devyani Khobragade and nominated for deletion in 2013 and as per discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade incident The consensus at that time was clear that person fails WP:BIO notability as an individual however the incident was notble enough and therefore article was renamed and moved to Devyani Khobragade incident. I have gone through this article also, mostly it is news surrounding incident and publicity or limelight she got aftermath of Devyani Khobragade incident. I strongly feel as an individual she non notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and Wikipedia:Too much detail also applies here hence Delete Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Devyani Khobragade was created on December 17, 2013. Later it was moved to Devyani Khobragade incident after being nominated for deletion. This article was recreated independently on January 8, 2014‎. --Auric talk 17:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article meets WP:GNG. In particular, this diplomat has been the subject of international journalism in many media sources for four unrelated scandals. I just restored the scandal content to this article which was recently deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - the controversy about her children passport and her posting are hardly encyclopedic information. The incident in US was notable enough and hence has been given her name as Devyani Khobragade incident. Also the Adarsh Housing Society Scam has many big politicians involved and there are many persons whom the flats were allotted apart from Khobergode. She was never party of FIR or investigation in the scam in fact other IAS officers like Jairaj Phatak were arrested and suspended (again WP:NOTNEWS) applied here. You have added back infos, which are just news stories, PLEASE SEE ALSO Wikipedia:Notability (events) AND Wikipedia:Too much detail, Wikipedia:Libel or much better essay @ Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Jethwarp (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to respond to proposals at the article's talk page, and maybe we can do that if this article passes. For a deletion nomination this content and especially the sources cited need to be in the article for review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FreeHeadset.org[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination. This appears to have been a short lived organisation and while there are a couple of refs they are basically launch publicity. I can’t find anything more recent to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NWEB, and it is also undersourced as well.Sheldybett (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article WP:SOAP OliverKianzo (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Centre for Human Rights[edit]

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

A non-profit that appears to be non-notable. Could not find sources to validate notability and the article itself is poorly sourced with some neutrality concerns. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google gave me eight different sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Rathfelder: - you can't just say google has references - you need to actually link to a couple of the best ones, even if you choose not to add them to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can. The question is "Is the organisation notable?", not "Is it properly referenced?".Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 8 February 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors of the Apocalypse (2009 film)[edit]

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

I did manage to find one review from a website that has been used as a reliable source in other film articles, but one source just doesn't cut it. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was renamed Apocalypse Female Warriors. [9] wearemoviegeeks.com is a reliable source for films. So with what you have, that makes two, so it passes WP:GNG Dream Focus 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two reviews given - WP:NFILM is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 2 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonick[edit]

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

Don't think this meets the WP:ORG requirement of multiple significant, reliable and independent coverage. The only real one is the Forbes article but it is more about the investment in the start-up as being notable. However, open-minded on this, and regardless, this article is going to be put up for AfD eventually (as it is, at best, borderline), so might as well test now. thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noting here that there is a potential COI since the SPA account that created this article also tried to insert information about this company in at least 2 BLP pages that have since been reversed. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references all appear to publicity pieces. The Billboard ref is the only one that I questioned, but it's clear that it's coming from the same material as that of the very poor Forbes ref. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree it's promotional, but I was able to find in-depth coverage quickly, and in good sources. This Artnet article is quite good. Coupled with Forbes and Billboard, it's enough... unless someone wants to make the argument that it's all coverage of a single issue. At the very least some editing is required.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very clearly No - references must be intellectually independent. An article such as Artnet.com that relies pretty much exclusively on an interview with a company officer and on a Billboard reference which is also on the same style (promotional and relying exclusively on quotations/interview with company officers) fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, NCORP guidelines were tightened up last year specifically to exclude this type of churnalism HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is pretty much standard level 'startup gets funding' rewritten press-release type, which is not impressive. Artnet is just a bit better, as it cites WP:INTERVIEW from Billboard... plus is Artnet a sufficient-quality and high-profile source to warrant keeping this? I think one source is not sufficient. Nope, to me this is still WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Artnet is a good source. Check the front page, where there is much evidence of quality reporting. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are entirely promotional, the article provides no indications of why this company is notable. References fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails WP:SPIP, WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 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 List of Commodore 64 games (A–M). Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manky (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Manky (video game) (2nd nomination)

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

Public domain game with one primary source and one minor review. There's nothing here to support meeting notability guidelines. Dgpop (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Commodore 64 games (A–M). Minor game with a lack of references to establish notability. However, the game does exist and is a valid search term. And as it is already on the master list of Commodore 64 games, a redirect there seems to make the most sense. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Afghan Airlines Flight 312[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS - article is about a commercial air flight that tipped over, slightly injuring six people Chetsford (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Per WP:AIRCRASH this should be a keep because it was a hull-loss (the aircraft was written-off) but I can't find any real evidence of significant, sustained coverage for this accident. Just the ASN listing and the AV Herald piece from 2014. With some more evidence of WP:SIGCOV I could flip to keep, but not with the present coverage. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DOesn't pass GNG. AIRCRASH is a well regarded essay - but still an essay. I did find this story (which differs from ASN - no injuries, no damage to the aircraft) - so I'm not sure how correct the ASN report is. Even if we accept the ASN report of 6 minor injuries and substantial damage (ASN itself doesn't support writeoff) - it doesn't pass AIRCRASH. And even if it were to be a hull loss (of the "too expensive to repair an old plane type") - of a 21 year old 737 - that's a bit umm - meh. AIRCRASH is a good essay - but it is a tad too binary - this is the sort of incident (if it passes V - which it doesn't here) - which is in the grey zone. Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass GNG,as per icewhiz.--Petebutt (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no coverage. Found this[10] it makes no difference. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NOTNEWS. Take your choice....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really noteworthy for a stand-alone article, if YA-PIB is a hull-loss then it can be just included in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and nothing extraordinary about this incident such as an unusual cause. Doradafan (talk) 19:32, 6 February 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Huldisch[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Draft moved directly to mainspace without review by its author. Several refs simply note her appointment. Nothing else hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I am in no way affiliated with the subject, just an art historian. Significant curatorial work makes this subject worthy of an article, in my opinion. Please see references that include NYTimes, artforum, and The Observer. --Wil540 art (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was nominated for deletion SIX MINUTES after it was moved to mainspace. What happened to WP:BEFORE C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article", and C3 "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag"? RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the speed of the nomination is a bit obscene. Velella, have you never heard of WP:BITE?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article appeared almost completely formed as a Draft 14 minutes before the nominations. The appearance of completely formed drafts is sometimes a cause for concern so I was doing my searches and finding nothing of significant notability only to find it booted straight from Draft to Mainspace with no review. I felt strongly that this was COI editing and possibly paid editing, and the weakness of the refs strongly suggested that this should be considered as to its appropriateness on Wikipedia. This was produced by an editor who has authored 13 articles, many about people at Whitney Museum of Art and most avoiding review. This is hardly the hallmark of a newbie. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh how some editors forget when they were pups or kits

the article creator's 1st edit ocurred on 18 Dec 2018 so has now been on WP for less than 7 weeks which in my books is a newbie (allbeit, one who creates well formed articles:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a couple of the sources in the article are OK, and I see many mentions that are more than passing in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the help ThatMontrealIP. I added a source and info from a NYMag article that goes more in depth about Huldisch.--Wil540 art (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This shows a number of books the person in question has authored, I don't know at first glance how significant they are, but it might be worth more investigation to see if they would help qualify for WP:NACADEMIC, which will take some time. As far as having a well-formed article, isn't that the whole purpose of the Sandbox? Using it is a positive. I personally have never built an article and had it reviewed prior to putting it in the mainspace. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added more reviews of exhibitions she has curated, and catalogue essays she has written. There is certainly non-trivial coverage and reviews in multiple, independent, reliable sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RebeccaGreen, nice edit. Would you mind looking at this another article I wrote on a curator that is also flagged? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Y._Lew. Please go ahead and edit/give your two cents if you so desire. thanks again --Wil540 art (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Girls: The Movie[edit]

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

None of the actors and actresses are famous outside of the internet, and only one has their own Wikipedia article. Plus, there are not many sources included in this article to show a strong sense of notability. Andise1 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage in reliable sources for notability. http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-brat-youtube-funding-20180718-story.html (Los Angeles Times) and https://decider.com/2018/07/19/chicken-girls-the-movie-youtube-stream-it-or-skip-it/ (Decider) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Also, per WP:ATD, it could be merged/redirected to Brat (digital network) if there's consensus that the movie is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per Eastmain. I would be ok with a merge as well if others agree. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small articles do not have to be deleted. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standalone article as it has coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 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. The discussion indicates the subject currently lacks sufficient coverage that is independent and significant. RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamín De Hoyos[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet the bar of WP:BASIC. Primary sources, passing mentions, passing quotations and name checks do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE searches have provided no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete – I checked a few Mexican sources and they only mention him in passing. No in-depth coverage from third-party (non-LDS affiliated) sources. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His leadership of Latter-day Saint opposition to the redefinition of marriage in Mexico made major headlines in multiple locations. See here [11], here from the Religion News service [12], the article from the Salt Lake Tribune already linked to in the article. Here is a very biased against De Hoyos source that leads with a half-page photo of him [13]. This is multiple locations, multiple coverage. We have multiple sources mentioning him and his actions. This is clearly enough to pass any reasonable reading of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – The sources presented above demonstrate that this is a WP:BLP1E situation, whereby the coverage is all about one event, specifically, Hoyos being against gay marriage. All of the articles linked above are from June 1-2, 2016. Regarding content in the sources presented directly above:

[14] – contains some content, but I feel that it falls short of significant coverage. There's a quotation, there's a mention of where the quote occurred, a mention of the LDS Church asking local bishops to parrot Hoyos' comment, and a mention that Hoyos "encouraged members of the church to join family and religious advocacy groups who oppose same-sex marriage." That's it.
[15] – A single passing mention, not much more than a name check: "Signed by the Area Authority president, Benjamin De Hoyos, and his two counselors, Paul B. Pieper and Arnulfo Valenzuela, the statement exhorted Mexico’s Mormons to push government leaders to “promote those measures designed to strengthen the family and to maintain it as the fundamental unit of society." This is not significant coverage. The subject signed something; no other information about the subject is presented.
[16] – Provides marginally significant coverage. So, this is one source.

However, the fact remains that this is a WP:BLP1E situation, meaning that the subject is not notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep. I may come up with other reasons later, but it should count for something that Elder De Hoyos has spoken thrice in General Conference. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DavidLeeLambert (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

A primary source stating that a subject has given speeches does not confer notability on English Wikipedia. Primary sources are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, community consensus is that LDS leaders have to meet WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Most of the sources in the article are not independent (lds.org, MormonNewsroom.org, Church News, Liahona, Ensign, the Almanac that says Deseret News on the label but is actually assembled by official Church News staff) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). Search finds mostly passing mentions and routine coverage (e.g. this person was at the temple opening), plus some quotes reprinted from church press releases. However, there is also coverage of this subject's leadership in opposing the constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in Mexico. (Note that I have removed the "traditional definition of marriage" POV from the article that did not reflect the cited source's characterizations.) But, as the nominator notes above, that simply makes this a WP:BLP1E issue, as the individual is otherwise low-profile and the event itself was not even significant enough to merit a mention in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Mexico article. So, even though some coverage exists, WP:BLP1E policy trumps guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source, from a non-LDS source, says De Hoyos is the highest LDS Authority in South America. Whether that's true or not, it attests to notability and is well outside the same-sex marriage timeframe. jj (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC) https://www.eltribuno.com/salta/nota/2018-9-25-19-4-0--urtubey-se-reunio-con-autoridades-de-la-iglesia-de-jesucristo-de-los-santos-de-los-ultimos-dias — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonJack (talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A matter, though, is that religious subjects do not have any presumed notability on English Wikipedia. Also, the source you provided is only a one sentence, passing mention that states, "There was also Elder Benjamín De Hoyos, member of the Seventy and highest authority in South America." This is not significant coverage, which is needed to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject is non-notable and fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I respectfully disagree with Northamerica1000: this doesn't even rise to BLP1E. There is no significant coverage of the subject independent of the church in which he has a leadership position, hence failure of WP:BIO. The leadership position does not by itself imply notability. Lagrange 613 10:29, 3 February 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. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listonic[edit]

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

Most of the sources are PR and not independant Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete unambiguous promo, fails WP:NORG, the listed awards are insignificant/nottotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthistorian1977: We added also independent sources - book and academic article.

@Staszek Lem: Listonic is an established and well-rated app that has been available to the public for the last 9 years. For more information, please find us on Google Play and Apple App Store, or visit our website www.listonic.com. As we're an established company with a product that has a worldwide reach, we think that we would benefit from a presence on Wikipedia in English, alongside our listing on the Polish version of the website which has already been accepted by Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listonic)." ````Kart8989

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources have been added, so those should be examined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: It seems it's been covered in scientific publications https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?start=0&q=listonic&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 quite often. As it's used in serious articles, not only PR ones, and it's made for worldwide audience, I think readers would benefit from more info about about it here. Also, the style of writing is ok, doesn't sound salesy ````Alemale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamale (talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Kart8989 and Alamale are single-purpose accounts with likely conflicts of interest. The article itself reads very much like an advertisement, padded with non-notable awards. I haven't reviewed the sources completely, but the ones I've looked at are either unreliable or do not cover the app in-depth. I'm holding off on a !vote for now, but I'm pretty sure this will fail WP:NCORP. – Teratix ₵ 07:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Town Center[edit]

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

More malls that fail GNG. all WP:MILL and nothing substantial Praxidicae (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Anything on Google are either local news or passing mentions. –eggofreason^talk 01:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Non-notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, more of a mega centre than a shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a quotidian subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a borderline WP:GNG candidate. I think this is a fairly common strip mall of minor to no notability based on the evidence at hand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LITIengine[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources, with zero hits at all with WP:VG/S's custom search. Zero news on Google, can't really seem to find even unreliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to fail WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems only a piece of paper. User:Lucifero4.
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 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)} 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barks Babes & Bros[edit]

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

Not a notable event. Local coverage of a fundraiser for rescue dogs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this possibly be merged to Salty Dog Paddle? – The Grid (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been mentioned in magazines and draw attention of Dog lovers and celebrities, so I thought it is a good contribution but I leave it to experts to decide. Thanks 'The Grid' for this idea. BananasReborn (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleaned up text and added sources to meet Wikipedia acceptable standards. I believe it reads to be a substantive subject now. ClintonCimring (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, article history shows that Clintoncimring, who has a highly-focused editing history around Salty Dog Paddle, made the recent changes to this article. ClintonCimring has an interesting SPI/COIN history, though. Which one are you? Bakazaka (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good candidate for CheckUser. – The Grid (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO. The sources are either primary (Salty Dog Paddle site), routine local announcements (Palm Beach Post announcement, duplicated for effect), local admag photo galleries (Jupiter), actual news releases (Newswire) or about guests but not the actual event (Maxim, IMDb). It's promotion. The article is promotion. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If someone wants to add non-promotional info to the Salty Dog Paddle article they can do that, but there isn't encyclopedic content here to merge, so there's no good reason to keep the editing history. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a good cause, but that has no bearing on notability. Promotional, and lacking in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Jmertel23 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricycle Records[edit]

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

~~See talkpage ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Non-notable company (tagged >3 years). It has always been little more than self-pronouncements and lists of releases. A {{db-corp}} was declined as having a list of notable associated performers is a potential claim of notability, but notability is not inherited. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, but record labels are known for the product they release, and by those releases their impact on musical culture. That said, I'm not convinced this label has a significant roster of notable artists. The Union Trade may be notable, but the label was started by that band, so in and of itself having this band on its roster does not help establish its notability. The Stripmall Architecture article does not mention the article at all, and the album mentioned in the Tricycle Records article is unsourced, so it fails WP:V. The Blacks (band) also does not mention the label, and likewise their entries on the Tricycle article are unreferenced. Everyone Is Dirty at least features that they are on Tricycle Records, but I'm not seeing by the references that this band is notable. Therefore there is one notable band, directly tied to the label. It therefore not "one of the more important independent labels" by WP:NMUSIC #5. An effort to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources revealed only directory listings. The label therefore fails WP:GNG as well insofar as I can tell. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Lucifero4
Comment. This is the best coverage I found. Local and not particularly in-depth. The label seems to have local significance, but I'm not sure there's enough to support an article. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 8 February 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. Perhaps US Attorneys should be notable, but the sources to show it seem to be lacking in this instance. RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Christensen[edit]

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

Doubtful that being a United States Attorney confers notability; certain that being only an acting one doesn't. Fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being US attorney, especially for a district like that of Utah, in which the person covers all operations of enforcing federal law for a district with 3 million inhabitants is clearly a sign of notability. This applies as much to acting US attorney's as those who are regularly nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where's the press coverage? The newspaper article "Triumvirate of women take lead in federal law enforcement in Utah" says she's the first woman to hold that position, but that's the only mention she gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, can't find anything useful apart from a couple of short announcements of her appointment, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: United States Attorney links its U.S. Attorneys offices to the District Court articles. Only some of these articles list U.S Attorneys, and those I've seen don't provide any biographical information, and are partially bluelinked 1, 2. Ideally there'd be a standardised treatment of U.S. Attorneys. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage causes the subject to fail WP:BIO. I suspect fully confirmed U.S. Attorneys ought to be considered notable, but that would not necessarily apply to those filling the role on an acting basis. Lagrange 613 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply being a US Attorney does not confer notability by the job title alone. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:17, 7 February 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.