Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 February 13 February >

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. Fenix down (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Hassan Al Halwani[edit]

Mahmoud Hassan Al Halwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a player who haven't played in a professional league before. May be even a speedy per WP:A7. Ben5218 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clearing that up, after I made that edit I looked to see if Al Halwani had any first team appearances for Zamalek, but I could not find any. Therefore my !vote would be Delete on the basis of the article failing WP:GNG and probably WP:TOOSOON. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Al Ahram's English-language website makes no mention of him playing for Zamalek's senior side. I cannot locate any significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 14 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heart to Heart International[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Heart to Heart International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This humanitarian relief agency doesn't seem to get much coverage outside of the local Kansas outlets, and all that I found was brief notes on some mission or other, or the mention of someone being on the board. There's a history of promotional editing here, and some of that is still in the article. What I don't see anywhere is in-depth discussion of the organization in secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a simple click on the "news" link above reveals a large number of significant independent coverage, enough to pass WP:GNG. Further, these references also pass WP:ORGDEPTH. I'll grant that the article needs edited and the sources added, but I don't find the article to violate any policy so it should remain until an enthusiastic editor makes those changes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Certainly sources out there of state, regional, and international, #1, #2, #3, #4 (minimum), and #5.
  • Keep - There seems to be enough news coverage of the organisation, as mentioned by the previous anonymous editor, to meet WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 15 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mumble rap[edit]

Mumble rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a term more so than an actual genre, a term more often than not used to slander the performer by critics. It is also impossible to define and highly subjective. Merge genre-specific information into the articles cloud rap, emo rap, trap music (hip hop) & lo-fi music which are the actual genres. Either Redirect mumble rap to hip-hop and merge relevant information into that article or rewrite this article to be about the term and the usage of it rather than the "genre" that is undefinable. Doradafan (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a fan of the seemingly endless sub-categorisation of rap however a basic google search throws up several articles in RS on this subject: [1], [2], [3]. Article is properly structured and referenced. Sadly, "mumble rap" is here. Britishfinance (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well structured and references which is meets WP:NMUSIC, but consider a slight twink would help. Sheldybett (talk) 23:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article certainly passes WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, I have some sympathy for the nominator as this article is in need of trimming and restructuring. In the end however mumble rap is one of the more covered sub-genres of rap music currently so deletion or merge would be the wrong course of action. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Being bold so I deleted the list of "mumble rappers" from the article. Who's supposed to be a judge of who is a mumble rapper? Is everyone a mumble rapper as long as one independent source says so? If that's the case we might as well categorize Metallica as pop or Frank Sinatra as indie-pop. It's such a loosely defined term, and pretty much no artist would ever define themselves as a mumble rapper. Doradafan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Its based on reliable source coverage, like every other list of artists on Wikipedia, and people can always discuss on the talk page if they'd like them removed and reach a consensus. Issan Sumisu (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mumble rap is a vague term of disparagement used to describe people varying from Young Thug to 6ix9ine. Lifestyle and Kooda for example are two different songs easily described as mumble rap that are clearly quite different genres. However, even though "mumble rap" is debateably an actual genre, it is an extremely notable term used significantly to describe songs and rappers. For that reason it should be kept with significant changes. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It is notable and is the main term known for the musical movement that started in the 2010s. -- Flooded w/them 100s 08:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG per reliable sources in Britishfinance's comment. Whether any particular artist or musical work should be classified under the genre is up for debate, but that consideration makes no difference to the notability of the mumble rap genre. — Newslinger talk 14:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm unconvinced by your reasons for wanting deletion. Though I do agree the article should be written a bit better.
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. Fenix down (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mats van Kins[edit]

Mats van Kins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two minutes in one professional game, subbed in the 88th minute of a 4–0 win in the 2017–2018 season. Media coverage is primary, non-significant coverage of joining the team and signing a contract. The article just barely meets NFOOTY, does not meet GNG, and should not be included in the encyclopedia (at least not yet). Leviv ich 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 21:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 21:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy keep, seeing as he passes WP:NFOOTY. Fully professional, capped in a professional game, and played in a professional league. No reason to delete whatsoever.Is in the beginning of his career, in the first division, so no real reason to delete this now.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep exactly the type of player WP:NFOOTY is designed for - he's currently a member of a team of a top ten European football league, has played in several friendlies, and has multiple mentions in different media sources in at least two different languages. I know it seems like a low bar, but my vote would be different if no media coverage of him existed, and maybe if his career had ended. But this is WP:NFOOTY working as it should, giving us a guideline of the moment a player becomes notable that's clear and usable worldwide. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY having played in a fully professional league. This is not a player who made a single appearance 30 years ago and was never heard of again. Van Kins is 20 years old and still part of the first team squad of a team in a fully professional league. Kosack (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question – If we give preference to players who barely pass NFOOTY at the beginning of their career as opposed to players at the end of their career, on the logic that there will be more significant coverage from independent secondary sources in the future, wouldn't that be doing the opposite of what is suggested by WP:TOOSOON (an essay, but one that has wide consensus in AfD practice)? Leviv ich 20:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not wrong, but my vote is based on his current media coverage. That probably plays into it too - it's much easier to find recent articles online than it is for articles even five years ago, per my research. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have explained, he meets WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - All the NFOOTY arguments above should be discarded as irrelevant and not based on policy - NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of GNG, however GNG still needs to be met and is challenged here. I do see however a smattering of passing mentions and these - [4][5][6] in Dutch - which may be just barely sufficient. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems a valid stub article per WP:NFOOTBALL, as others have pointed out to nominator it's the beginning of his career. Govvy (talk) 23:56, 18 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) 00:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curiyo[edit]

Curiyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Company that closed; no evidence of notability now or when it was stillan active company DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Curiyo did not last long enough to make a notable enough mark.TH1980 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's multiple references demonstrate notability. The fact that the business has closed down does not detract from that notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could only find one semi-decent RS on the company from Forbes (which I have added to the article). However, it is only one of three companies profiled by Forbes and the profiles themselves are not detailed. Every other RS was either not specifically about the company/passing reference, or not a strong RS. No point in building a weak case for WP:GNG for this one, as if it doesn't get AfD'ed now, it will eventually. Ultimately, its technology never worked and it shut-down soon after getting its main funding. Britishfinance (talk) 15:26, 19 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) 12:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tuychiev Bobirjon[edit]

Tuychiev Bobirjon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. De-PRODed by creator without addressing any issues. BlameRuiner (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:51, 13 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) 00:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirshod Shakirov[edit]

Mirshod Shakirov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a page just recently deleted via PROD. The same issues persist: WP:A7, WP:G11 BlameRuiner (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:32, 12 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) 00:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brunström[edit]

Michael Brunström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Coverage is passing at best. Few of the sources provided are more than passing mentions; some do not mention the subject at all. Does not appear to pass WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE as well as WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲水 07:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Author commment) I contend that Michael is one of the most creative people in comedy, therefore he is notable in respect to comedy, in respect to the advancement of ideas. The Malcolm Hardee awards were an effort to recognise creative contributions to comedy, and named after one of the original pioneers of alternative comedy. Comedy is a creative art and not just entertainment. Lots of comedians who are known to have stolen other comedians' jokes have Wikipedia articles, simply because they've been on TV. Regularuk (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Regularuk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • Delete. The sources currently in the article are:
  1. 65 words at Chortle.
  2. A mention in a list of 12 people at Chortle.
  3. A mention in a list of thirteen people in an advertisement by Alexandra Palace.
  4. An award announcement by Chortle that doesn't mention Brunström directly - I presume he's one of the twelve friends in Tony Law and Friends.
  5. 76 words in The Independent.
  6. A mention in a list of four comedians who were not performing at the 2018 Edinburgh Fringe in The Independent.
  7. A mention by the awards site that he received a an award. I don't know quite how prestigious this award is, but it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article: just a section in the article about the person it is named after.
  8. A mention as one of eight nominees for a "Best Festival Poster" award at the Leicester Comedy Festival.
  9. A mention as one of six nominees for a "Best Festival Poster" award at the Leicester Comedy Festival.
and I can't find anything better in searching elsewhere. Maybe he is one of the most creative people in comedy, but we have to have better sources than this that actually have significant coverage to base a Wikipedia article on. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:40, 12 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) 00:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Francišković[edit]

Marko Francišković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just can't find enough English references to confirm WP:GNG. I suspect that this person is more of a Croatian political activist (than a writer), and that en references are therefore hard to find, however could also be someone promoting their own platform. Am open-minded on it. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A non-notable activist and writer. I believe his books, listed in the article, are all self-published. He is mostly known for his incident with Ranko Ostojić, and this is not sufficient for notability. GregorB (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Offline 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I am on the fence about this one - we need to see more sources. This article has a high potential to be a POV/COI problem, but I could see it being notable with a little more coverage. But that coverage is likely not in English. Skirts89 21:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Skirts89: Give us a source that we have not seen, or point to a specific RS that moves you to keep, and we can all try to assess it. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Skirts89: Thanks. Definately seems like a political activist type. The issue is still that this source, Logicno is not an RS for GNG. I feel like there are scraps and pieces but no material RS that marks him out as noteworthy (e.g. major interview in a major paper). For a political-BLP, you should be getting a few of these. Britishfinance (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Britishfinance: I believe you may be right, there needs to be more coverage for him to qualify under WP:AUTHOR. I think I'm willing to change my weak keep to a delete if this source isn't an RS. Skirts89 22:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources I've found: [7] (in which he's commenting in a political state about creating the death penalty for treason against former presidents, and in which he is only referred to as a "candidate"; [8] (a quote on a post on an apparent fringe website whose current main article is how the HNZ and SDP have turned Croatia into a private corporation); and some posts about his institutionalisation [9]. He did have a lightly attended book tour. It at worst fails WP:GNG and at best fails WP:FRINGE, since he's not portrayed well by any reliable source. SportingFlyer T·C 01:32, 13 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) 00:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manshour Varasteh[edit]

Manshour Varasteh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) to be more specific. All "sources" used are somehow not independent from the subject, and are used to mask the lack of notability. Pahlevun (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Authored quite a few books (though many in Farsi) - which are held by libraries per worldcat. There are reviews - [10][11][12]. Has fawiki entry, and there are additional sources there. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the nominator. Those who voted to keep, fail to clarify which of the criteria are met. Pahlevun (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not have enough secondary sourcing to meet WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not seeing evidence that WP:GNG is met. I'm having trouble determining how notable his work has been as a scholar. He appears to have edited several compilations of essays but that's not telling me much about his notability. Icewhiz is correct about the reviews of the one book. The problem is, again, determining how much to attribute to Varasteh when his essay is one of ten in the book being reviewed. Google scholar shows only 1 book written by him that has any citations (4), everything else for him he's either the editor or one of multiple contributors. Leaning toward delete but without high confidence. Papaursa (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 12. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Offline 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC, also has Persian Wiki entry with additional sources.Déjà vu • ✉ 14:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is fawiki entry, and has reliable sources. MA Javadi (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Icewhiz.- Poya-P (talk) 12:50, 16 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) 18:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Georgio Kyriacou[edit]

Georgio Kyriacou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Football player who fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This player has played for Ventura County Fusion, Deportivo Coatepeque and Seattle Sounders U23 as the article suggests. This page has been standing since 2011 however the sources have since been deleted on the original websites. Here is a link which links him to USL side Ventura County Fusion after receiving an invite to the draft - https://twitter.com/VCFusion/status/288835254029008897

The club he played for in Guatemala, Deportivo Coatepeque was a Liga Nacional top division side however the club seized to exist so those sources from the official website are now dead. https://www.instagram.com/p/Bm67G8-gs6B/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

http://www.ex-canaries.co.uk/players/kyriacou.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cypriot_footballers

The player is currently injured, however will be back playing professionally in the summer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.159.8 (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the clubs mentioned above play in fully-pro league. --BlameRuiner (talk) 22:47, 12 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seva Cafe[edit]

Seva Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional. Regardless of possible notability , promotionalism is a failure of WP:NOT ADVOCACY and a reason for deletion. I do not see how this can be improved, since a promotional praise of the merits of its approach is the core of the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the Forbes reference is the only one that gives me pause, but it's far from enought. Joe (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lots of refs for a small business. I'm not sure how else you would spell out why they get all this press except to say what they do. Legacypac (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair to assume they get press for the usua lreason small companies get press, by hiring pr agents in order to promote their business DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick GSearch uncovers coverage from Times Of India, India Today, The Hindu,Forbes and a small paragraph in The Telegraph(Too small to add to notability so removing) which tells me that this is Cafe is probably notable. Promotional material itself is not a reason for deletion unless it explicitly written in adspeak. SOFIXIT applies here. << FR (mobileUndo) 11:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Times of India and India Today are real coverage. These are full sized newspapers. No churnalism but an examination of the gift or pay-it-forward economy in both instances as the context of the cafe. scope_creepTalk 11:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems that there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. It may be a little too promotional, but I believe it might be a little hard to describe the operation of the restaurant (which is its primary reason for notability) without it coming across as at least a little promotional. Gargleafg (talk) 23:22, 13 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. I don't generally delete with just one supporting comment, but a quick look at the page was enough. If this had been nominated as a CSD A7 I would have zapped it. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DREAMdirect Group[edit]

DREAMdirect Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

12-year-old contested PROD; WP:BEFORE indicates it does not meet the WP:NCORP notability threshold. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Strong candidate for WP:A7 or even "Draftification" (given no references), which given the fact it has hardly been edited in 10 years, would have killed it off. This company is not notable in Britain, and there is no British quality RS of which they are the subject article. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 19 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. Downweighting comments from discussants with limited wiki experience, there is clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will Harris (businessman)[edit]

Will Harris (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any reliable independent source coverage of this guy, making him non-notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Author). there are enough sources that meet WP:RS to deem him notable. He is the founder of an organization, owns multiple companies, and is an author. Lonk11 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Where are the sources that satisfy WP:RS, since they are not in the article? Many people found organizations, own companies, and self-publish books, but these things do not confer notability on their own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since Harris has done a lot of his work in other countries (primarily India), a lot of sources are in other languages. I found an Indian newspaper article on him and I am trying to translate it to Wiki reference terms. Lonk11 (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Lonk11: Lets go through these 4 new references you have listed one-by-one for suitability:
Ted Talk – this is him giving a Ted Talk to promote himself and his business. Not a suitable RS for WP:GNG
ICFAI University Sikkim Brochure – this is a brochure from a university mentioning a "motivational speaker" talk by Bill Harris. Not a suitable RS for WP:GNG
Sipna College of Engineering and Technology, Amravati – Induction programme featuring "movitational speaker" Bill Harris. Not a suitable RS for WP:GNG
Facebook: Who is Will Harris – a facebook page promiting Bill Harris. Not a suitable RS for WP:GNG
  • Strong Delete. I could not find any solid good RS that would establish notability (never mind several). Article is very promotional. Britishfinance (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After checking new sources from the author (see above and below), can see that there is a strong WP:PROMO / WP:COI here. Britishfinance (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Toned down promotional material - not sure what Indian sources are being referred to here. Weak keep. Justwatchmee (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As you have just joined Wikipedia and have already being editing this article (and making properly formatted contributions to AfD, your 13th edit on WP, which could raise a concern of WP:SOCK), you may not be familiar that AfD is not a vote - you need to provide good sources that meet WP:RS that prove notability. Founding an organization is not notable if no significant independent third party source notices it. At the moment we have none. Can you provide such sources?Britishfinance (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add any reliable sources to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 21:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He is notable in India - primarily because of his work with Sikkim University. See sources above. Lonk11 (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have reviewed these 4 new references above. They are junk, and highlight a material WP:PROMO aspect to this article. They also highlight a possible WP:COI issue as this article represents the bulk of all your edits on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable sources places him as a best-selling author. He also has done significant works both as a motivational speaker/writer and a businessman. Laboj (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another new WP editor who has found their way to AfD. That is two potential WP:SOCKs now. Bill must be paying up for this article. Britishfinance (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes to Closer. We have keeps from the article author and two SPAs. Regrding WP policy, there is still not any material RS (nevermind several) to give GNG. No newspaper article, independent book, chapter of independent book, tv review or other quality RS media, where he was the subject. We can prove existance, but nothing re notability. Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Author) I've provided several sources covering multiple aspects of Harris's career. He does most of his work in India where he has had a lot of newspaper coverage but in another language, and I've provided other sources noting his work in several fields. Harris has sustainable notability throughout many aspects of his life. He meets WP:GNG because of this. Lonk11 (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the additional sources have been gone through above and none are close to being a RS that would establish notability. Not one. Britishfinance (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources suck. Article is borderline CSD G11 material. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 20 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) 00:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Second Birth[edit]

A Second Birth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any SNG for plays, but this would fail WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Most of the sources in the article are either connected to the playwrite, or are listings; I can't find any non-UGC reviews online; the awards listed don't appear to be notable (we do not have articles on any of them); the article makes not claims to notability under any other criteria. (Note: I already removed and requested revdel on a chunk of the content from the first paragraph which was copy/pasted from one of the sources, so as it stands it's a little sparse). GirthSummit (blether) 18:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lack of third party reliable source coverage. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC) Note: I am working with the nominator on new page patrol but came to this assessment independently.[reply]
  • Keep (Author of article) Addressed items raised in notice for deletion (newly written overview submitted which includes description of cultural significance; additional references supporting significance of awards added; additional internal wiki links added) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight without armor (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The additional reference is to a review on a blog site (Utah Theater Bloggers Association) -it's WP:UGC, so it doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG notability concern. The links added lead to our article on the college festival which gives out numerous awards - I don't think that they would count as 'major literary awards' for the purposes of WP:NBOOK. GirthSummit (blether) 08:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the references in the article a quality RS. The only mention that I can find of this play is here, which is not a quality ref. Author of the play also does not screen well for notability. The awards are not in themselves notable. Maybe this play will become notable, but currently it is not. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 19 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deseret Museum[edit]

Deseret Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Religious POV, no clear notability Noahhoward (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Encyclopedia of Mormonism and the Utah Historical Quarterly are both respected scholarly sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has historic notability as shown in the multiple references already in the article that link to reliable book sources so passes WP:GNG and deserves to be included in Wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps even speedy (bad nom - religious POV is not a deletion reason). WP:NOTTEMPORARY - would a 50-year old present day majority museum be notable? Yes. Google books has a whole bunch of good hits, e.g. - [13][14][15][16]. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject matter is not relevant. It throws up plenty of solid RS from independent sources (as listed above). It’s notable. Britishfinance (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no religious POV. Spicemix (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spicemix: Article has since been improved from original which described mission of museum "an institution dedicated to spreading knowledge". Noahhoward (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invalid reason for deletion, institutions wit a religious POV can certainly be notable when, as here, sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. wp:ITSAMUSEUM. --Doncram (talk) 19:22, 19 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Project AWARE[edit]

Project AWARE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable and article has been marked as reading like an advert for years. Rivselis (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'll list some sources: Big Ten Network Herald Mail Media California Diver DeeperBlue KMCH KCRG There can be more sources, but it's enough. –eggofreasontalk 18:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it’s not clear to me why the nominator thinks the topic isn’t notable, given the abundance of sources. Mccapra (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is notable and there is a lot of sources (i.e. Its website claims to be associated with ten NGOs/INGOs of which I have so far found nine independent citations. Also, I have also found sources for corporate registration et al on the websites of the Australian, British and Californian governments). I have started upgrading the article. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet GNG and ORG to me, with reasonable reliable sustained, broad, and multi national coverage. The current article though is too reliant on primary sources. Aoziwe (talk) 06:52, 17 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. In this situation I do suggest a reasonable waiting period to see if coverage is SUSTAINED and what LASTING effects of this are. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Queens subway shooting[edit]

2019 Queens subway shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While tragic, this appears to be a run-of-the-mill gang shooting. It is probably not notable as a standalone article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will agree, that when I originally created this article, it may not have been notable enough. However, it has since been mentioned by President Trump in the State of the Union address, which greatly increases its notability. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but Trump likes to talk about MS-13 killings a lot. Besides, this section of the MS-13 article already talks about the shooting. As nominator, I'm not going to pressure you to make any decision; just saying that it would probably be better off being merged. epicgenius (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Breaking news story getting intense coverage and drawing wide attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY Expanded the article. But this is now far more than a breaking news story. The State of the Union is significant. And the fact that the shooter had been caught-and-released by NYPD three times last year for property crimes and would have been in detention awaiting deportation in other cities but was on the street because NYC doesn't do ICE holds is drawing attention. Plus teh MS-13 connection was getting WP:SIGCOV nationally even before the SotU speech. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is assuredly not an OTHERSTUFF argument, but perhaps a read of WP:BLUDGEON might be in order. This crime does not have SIGCOV - the cheeto in chief's mention of it does. Not the same thing. John from Idegon (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above betrays an alarming lack of familiarity with the 22 WP:RS currently extant refs in the article. The majority of those RS do not even mention the President of the United States. XavierItzm (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:GNG .Now the only real question here is does this pass WP:LASTING that cannot be determined at this point.But given Trump's mention in the in the State of the Union address it may do do so but for now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most definitively a Keep It now meets WP:SIGCOV following the President of the U.S. raising the issue at the State of the Union report. XavierItzm (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS. A possible WP:ATD solution might be to redirect it to an article on the 2019 State of the Union address. John from Idegon (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't work because only a small part of the coverage is SotU-related.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another, WP:HEY, multiple editors have improved the article with new, non-ROUTINE coverage; something new comes up every day and been covered by NATIONAL media largely related to the political buttons this crime pushes, but there is nothing run-of-the-mill about this level of ONGOING, NATIONAL coverage. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leading the news on New York's local WNYC National Public Radio tonight are constituents of Ocasio-Cortez, who have formed a new organization called "Latinos for ICE" and are standing on the subway platform where the murder took place, denouncing their congresswoman, and calling on ICE to step up deportations of illegal alien members of criminal gangs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the coverage is ONGOING... I just added the Feb 10th New York Public Radio report on Francisco Moya opening up town hall meetings and otherwise reacting to "Latinos for ICE" which was formed as a result of this event. XavierItzm (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a New York-centric news story that would've only gotten Daily News blotter mention without the magic 'scary 'in' gang affiliation' words going on and use in political rhetoric (and all the stuff in 'Political attention' is weighted on one side outside 2 'but they said' links for a false balance). Come back in 6-12 months and this will get a 30 second mention on Fox 5 at sentencing, at best. Complete NOTNEWS failure. Nate • (chatter) 18:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
��Please note WP:CRYSTALBALL. Nobody knows what will happen in 6-12 months. As of now, though, the issue meets WP:GNG and coverage is ongoing. Just added the news from CBS today, 12 February. XavierItzm (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a New York-centric news story that would've only gotten Daily News blotter mention without the magic 'scary 'in' gang affiliation' words going on and use in political rhetoric.... Perhaps that is true, but the reality is that this crime does involve a gang and has been used in no less "political rhetoric" than the State of the Union address. Additionally, if you feel the article is unbalanced, you are more than invited to try to fix it. Deletion is not the solution to articles that may need cleanup. Puzzledvegetable (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a Ms-13 shooting but it speaked volume because it was in a crowded area where a lot of people saw it. Also there was a big manhunt for the gunman. So thats a lot for a no notable story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 11S117 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:GNG. Per good sources.BabbaQ (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage in multiple sources.Patapsco913 (talk) 21:11, 15 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) 00:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest residences in Saudi Arabia[edit]

List of largest residences in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except for geo coordinates, article is a duplicate of the information in Palaces in the article Al-Waleed bin Talal. While this article has 2 reliable sources, the sources are about Al-Waleed and only make passing mention of the palaces. The Wikipedia Arabic article on Al-Waleed does not contain any information about the residences. I did an extensive WP:Before search and found no sources that have substantial information. Article fails WP:NBUILD. I also tried to expand the list, but found nothing. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Three entries doesn't make a notable list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial list about few residences. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to world-wide title, List of largest residences (new list-article, just being created by me to address this AFD), leaving redirect behind to give credit due to original authors, in the edit history. It is fine to have a 3-item section there about huge houses in Saudi Arabia. This list-article is one of only two national-level list-articles (the U.S. is the other) in Category:Lists of largest buildings and structures. --Doncram (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of Doncram's merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with a list like this. I would accept Doncram's merge proposal as a compromise. A list does not require in-depth discussion of individual members of the list. In any case, there is coverage, for instance The Guardian and Vanity Fair. SpinningSpark 00:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the concept of this article is fine, there is nothing to confirm that this is really list of the largest residences in Saudi - i.e no notable independent magazine has done a review of the top 10 largest residences in Saudi? Therefore, the content is of little use to any reader, it is simply a list of three large houses in Saudi. Britishfinance (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:18, 12 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) 00:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Brown[edit]

Cooper Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Normally I'd WP:PROD this, but given the ridiculously earnest discussions on the talk page this has the potential to be contentious. Cooper Brown was a joke feature that ran intermittently as filler for a couple of years in The Independent. (This was a fairly typical example; we're not talking deathless prose here.) I can find no indication that anyone other than Wikipedia has ever even mentioned the topic (the 'references' are dead links to the parody website for the subject), and since The Independent ceased publishing three years ago (the website that now uses the name has almost nothing in common with the print newspaper it nominally succeeded), I imagine it's safe to assume there will never be anything further written by or about the subject. ‑ Iridescent 17:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(adding) A bit more digging shows a couple of passing mentions in interviews with Dom Joly (who wrote it), and a couple of sentences in Joly's autobiography, but these obviously don't constitute independent third party non-trivial coverage. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Beat me to the nomination, by a few minutes:-) ∯WBGconverse 17:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no "there" there.  Kablammo (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary, independent coverage of the subject [17], illustrated by the paucity—facebook, primary, and just lowgrade—of the existing sources. @Iridescent:...and of course fails WP:ANYBIO, eh  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 17:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129, if there's an argument to be made it would be that it's a work by a notable subject and consequently inherits Dom Joly's notability, in the same way that we have an article on Cows in the Meadow even though virtually nothing has been written specifically about it. With all due respect, I personally don't feel that a guy whose act consisted of holding a giant phone is in the Van Gogh/Lennon/Dickens bracket of being so notable that all his works are inherently notable. ‑ Iridescent 17:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough notable coverage to be on Wikipedia. Couldn't find any secondary sources. Justwatchmee (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dom Joly, where it is not currently mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is, in fact, mentioned in the Dom Joly article (He was alleged to be the writer of a spoof column in The Independent and then "i" called "Cooper Brown: He's out there."). No value in a merge. Risker (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean "No value in a merge" - the Cooper Brown character has had an article for over 10 years & got 900 views last year, and you don't want any detail on it at all? That is just wierd. Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's nothing in the Cooper Brown article that would not represent undue weight in the Dom Joly article. This was hardly Joly's most prominent reason for notability; almost all of the rest of his writings are more notable than this. Further, it is mentioned already in the Joly article, with its own paragraph, leading off the "writings" subsection. The current Brown article is only six sentences, two of which refer to specific columns, one of which says the fake personality made a facebook page post. That's not really merge-worthy material. Redirect would be fine, but I see no point in merging. Risker (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well for a start the bio only says he is the "alleged" author, lacking the confirmation ref that Iri has found above. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet any version of notability. Risker (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, is there a problem with turning this into a redirect to Career#Dom Joly as this could come up as a wikireader search term? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's probably nothing wrong with redirecting it to Dom Joly#Career. This could be done after deleting the previous content, if wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 900 views a year is some combination of web crawlers and lost people looking for information on a fairly common name and coming here because Wikipedia gets great search engine rankings. I doubt many readers are looking for this page. Legacypac (talk) 11:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per me. Lourdes 03:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A revealing debate Would any of the deleters care to share their reasons for not following normal WP practice and at least redirecting to the article where, as pointed out above, it is already covered? Johnbod (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't have an issue with redirecting to Dom Joly if someone really feels it worthwhile. I find it unlikely that anyone would find such a redirect useful—I can't imagine anyone searching for this other than fans of Joly's, who would expect to find this at the parent article rather than on a content fork anyway—but redirects are cheap. As Legacypac (almost) says, an average of three pageviews per day is going to be almost exclusively background noise generated by misclicks, searching for similar-sounding topics and people clicking the existing link on Dom Joly; I very much doubt anyone is actually not only thinking "hey, I want to find out about a decade-old spoof column in a defunct newspaper", but remembering the name in order to search for it in the first place. Ironically, the main argument for keeping the history is probably to preserve the lunacy on the talk page in case it needs to be used as future evidence should the user in question submit an unblock request. ‑ Iridescent 19:45, 18 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. Tone 16:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Valenzuela Mella[edit]

Oscar Valenzuela Mella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find evidence of significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 11:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable person. I can't find any good sources either. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Can't find any WP:RS. Justwatchmee (talk) 17:31, 12 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. Tone 16:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions in Artsakh[edit]

List of diplomatic missions in Artsakh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-topic: you can't have a list of X when there aren't any X. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with no prejdudice for recreation should this become a non-null set.Icewhiz (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A simple solution, and the easiest way to allow for recreation if necessary, would be to redirect to Foreign relations of Artsakh. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirecting to Foreign relations of Artsakh would leave a misleading redirect because it implies there is list at that page when there really isn't one. Since there is not already a list on this subject, one would have to start from scratch anyway should they want to "re"create this. (also a reply to GN-z11) -- Tavix (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about maybe creating a section on Foreign relations of Artsakh with a list that says there aren't any diplomatic missions? GN-z11 ☎ ★ 10:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Artsakh. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is still valuable in the sense that it confirms that there are no current missions in Artsakh (avoiding any speculations), furthermore this article could be expanded in the future (if/when) another state establishes diplomatic representation in Artsakh and thus avoiding recreation. Perhaps changing the title of the page in the mean time or removing "list of" would be a less drastic change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.194.133 (talk • contribs)
    • Foreign relations of Artsakh already confirms that, so there is no reason to have a separate page just to state that fact. Redirecting allows for "recreation". postdlf (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point in regards to the redundancy of it, but could an argument be made for consistency sake? Under the template "List of diplomatic missions in Europe" of the 50 or so recognized and partially recognized states of Europe, Artsakh would be the only "state" that wouldn't have a page. Would it be possible to remove "List of" from the title to make it less misleading/redundant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.130.130 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Artsakh is also the only state* in Europe that doesn't have any diplomatic missions in it, so it makes sense that it would be the only one to not have a page. It's certainly possible to tweak the template to link to the foreign relations article if that's the route we want to take, the instructions are at Template:Europe topic#Altering the link used for a specific entity. -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Directly linking to the foreign relations page from the template is not a bad idea. I still like also keeping the redirect though. I don't view it as misleading as a redirect existing does not make any factual claim. We instead create redirects to match reader expectation. If someone will search for "diplomatic missions in Artsakh" (and they will), the redirect should exist to direct them to the right place (to find out that there aren't any). postdlf (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTN. No list entries, no purpose for article. Ajf773 (talk) 22:25, 12 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. Tone 16:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous roads in Hampshire[edit]

List of eponymous roads in Hampshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most places of any size have a number of streets or roads named after people; I cannot see why there is any encyclopedic value in a list of such occurrences in Hampshire. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) Well there is a List_of_eponymous_roads_in_London article already. Is London a special case or should that article be deleted as well?
2) A complete set of List_of_eponymous_roads_in_xxx would be useful for articles on the individuals concerned?
SkymasterUK (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP: NLISTCRUFT. If this list is kept, it would have to be renamed "List of eponymous roads in Eastleigh" as all of the roads listed are in Eastleigh. Vorbee (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Vorbee:Its a start. I started with my home town. Other towns will be added.. SkymasterUK (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So nobody want to answer my questions? Its just Delete, Delete, Delete.. How are people supposed to learn how to do Wikipedia 'properly' if people don't engage in a conversation? Not trying to be funny, just don't get it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkymasterUK (talk • contribs) 10:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry Skymaster, I'm not persuaded.
1) An "other stuff exists" argument. The merits of the other article would have to be discussed on its talk page, or an AfD started, or a general proposal ("All such lists are valid/invalid") placed for discussion at Village Pump or a relevant WikiProject.
2) Not very: I imagine you envisage someone inserting into say Benny Hill a mention that Benny Hill Close in Eastleigh is named after him. But to make a complete job of this you'd have to check the corresponding list article for every town in the world!
If you follow the above link to WP:LISTN, it will become apparent that the question of "notability" here boils down to "Is the topic of Road naming in Hampshire encyclopedic – is it covered by independent reliable sources?" If it is, then the present list article could be a spin-off from a potential prose article. If not, then the topic is "non-notable" and by extension the present list article is non-notable. Lots of Wikipedians like making lists, and so long as they're not misleading there is little harm in them, but often little real value either, so take this as a neutral: Bhunacat10 (talk), 11:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Ajf773, there are many such roads in Hampshire alone and the list is far from complete, every town of village could have many. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, frankly, i am surprised that this list is so small, there are numerous streets in oz that are named after people, eg in Fadden, Australian Capital Territory "Its streets are named after Queensland politicians.", in Gowrie, Australian Capital Territory "Gowrie's streets are all named after members of the Australian Defence Force who won decorations, including the Victoria Cross.", as with this list, although those people are notable it doesnt mean we need list articles of those streets because they are named after people. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Coolabahapple: It's not that there are not many of them, it is just this is the start of the list and I didn't have time to put more in before the AFD was placed on the page. Like a lot of pages on Wikipedia, small start but then grow and grow over time. Not the case in this one SkymasterUK (talk) 10:58, 15 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) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of implants[edit]

History of implants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An unholy mishmash from various articles' history sections that constitutes original research, made based on unfounded concerns about article size that are based on one of the least-followed policies or guidelines on the project. A user who didn't even start a new talk page with a section header and needed to be told the basics of talk page guidelines has no business making dictates about major article reorganisations on this project. Graham87 08:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
quote "Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division..."
unquote. I admit that Ocular prosthesis actually was only 41,809 byte, thanks. Nice to meet you, Graham. I am 33-years-old Chinese, I have 85 in my name coz I was born in the year 1985. I would like to elaborate on the article size point. I respect you calling it the "least-followed policies or guidelines".

Westerners in general can access Wikipedia freely. However in China (another example is Turkey), the Great Firewall denies access to Wikipedia. They are supposed to read the not-so-free and who-cares-about-neutrality encyclopedias only: Baidu Baike and Baike.com. Netizens who are thirsty for real knowledge still want to read Wikipedia, and how do they do that? They break through the firewall and read at a slower speed. For the Third World, it could be a combination of factors: living too far away from the city, Wi-Fi sharing, old/slow hardware. Tony85poon (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Wikipedia is not primarily designed for those people, and anything we do to accommodate them should not degrade the user experience for other readers. For example the way you arranged the history of the Hip replacement article effectively hid the history section ... nobody would think to look for it in the see also section of the article, because that's a completely non-standard location. That also breaks summary style, a core guideline which determines how content is organised here. Also the prose sizes on the article size page are *readable* prose size, not the size of the wikitext; the Ocular prosthesis page's readable prose size is only 23KB per User:Dr pda/prosesize. Graham87 14:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Graham87 in theory, most of the changes to the underlying articles should be changed back - wikipedia is an encyclopedia (WP:PILLARS) and histories of medical procedures can and usually should be in articles about procedures regardless of Chinese policies and methods of their circumvention. In the middle- or long-term, and article, "History of implants" seems encyclopedic, and I don't like !voting delete on a TNT basis along. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologize for the way I edited the breast article, Ocular prosthesis article, the Prosthesis ‎article and the Hip article. Having said that, I think (and I better stay away from doing this) maybe there should be new "History of breast implants" and "History of prosthesis" articles. There is a heated debate of whether Dental implant and Root analogue dental implant should be merged altogether here. They used to have their own history sections. The history content has gotten so big and has driven me to do this in the first place.

In order to make progress efficiently, I shall change the scope, that is, moving to "History of dental treatments". I shall chop off all the breast, Prosthesis ‎et cetera contents in this article. I intend to keep the George Washington denture content in this article though. Btw I thank User:Diannaa. As a follow-up, I started a dental discussion at Talk:Dentures#Sync. Tony85poon (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy (move to draft) - not ready for main space, not yet a fully developed draft. I suggest letting Tony85poon working on this in draft space, and once he is done crafting a draft that is better than the parent article (and has consensus to do so) - moving this to mainspace and trimming the parent article. Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic of the article is notable and encyclopedic, and just because it's not written perfectly, or there are concerns about an editor, is not a reason for deletion. IF there is consensus that this isn't ready for main space (which I disagree with, we have lots of WP:NOTFINISHED content here) then would support move to user space and submission through AfD. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. As others have explained to my satisfaction, this subject is notable, but it is not yet ready for mainspace. Let's return it to draft space and, when the author feels it is ready, they can submit it for an AfC review. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 'Draft space' is not safe. After deleting another article with good reason, the Administrator deleted my User:Tony85poon/sandbox-fellowship too. By the way, I am fine with the Administrator deleting that other article. I just point out that 'draft space' can somehow disappear. Tony85poon (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify -- The topic is worth having and I am sorry that is has been moved to being dental. At present it is merely repeating information that is probably in two main articles, but there is scope for including the history (from 1982) of implant surgery. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good observation. In the old version, I did try to reduce the length of the Dentures article. However, Graham87 undid my edit. Then, the two articles look highly similar. After this article becomes stable (survives the deletion debate), someone can reduce the readable prose size of the Dentures article per "A summary of the history should at least remain here?" James' logic. Tony85poon (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:06, 12 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. Most of the keep arguments were not based on WP:PAG and were instead relying on CRYSTALBALLING with respect to possible future events. I found one in particular to be quite rude. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titania McGrath[edit]

Titania McGrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1EWhatever the blp1e equivalent is for parody accounts, with questionable coverage, at best. Praxidicae (talk) 14:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added several more references which were easy to find. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Praxidicae
easy to find ≠ suitable sources to establish notability
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath No WP:TWITTER ~ Reliable for WP:PRIMARY No ✘ No
https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/books/bougie-london-literary-woman-twitter-account-a3998071.html Yes No Evening Standard is a tabloid No Even if it were reliable, it's not in-depth coverage of her ✘ No
https://iea.org.uk/twitters-latest-suspension-proves-motive-doesnt-matter-anymore/ ? No It's a blog ~ WP:SIGCOV isn't achieved by an MOS:OPED in a blog ✘ No
https://spectator.us/welcome-back-titania-mcgrath/ Yes No This piece in particular definitely isn't and the US version of The Spectator clearly doesn't have the same level of editorial oversight or quality control, considering it was written by this guy No I don't see how we can achieve WP:SIGCOV while not being truly WP:RS ✘ No
https://quillette.com/2018/12/13/i-now-understand-how-nelson-mandela-felt/ No It's written entirely by her ? Even if it's sometimes reliable, they don't differentiate between user submissions or editorial staff. No Written by her. ✘ No
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/02/why-im-a-fan-of-titania-mcgrath/ Yes ~ This is a weekly blog by Charles Moore so somewhat reliable but still WP:NEWSBLOG No I would not consider a handful of sentences in a weekly guest column to be in depth coverage, especially considering this is WP:BLP1E ✘ No
https://www.littlebrown.co.uk/books/detail.page?isbn=9781472130839 No ~ Possibly, for WP:PRIMARY No WP:SPS ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Just because her name exists in places on the internet or elsewhere, doesn't mean she has the required significant, independent, in-depth and reliable coverage required for an article. Praxidicae (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Charles Moore piece is not in fact a blog but a magazine article: the blog link is more convenient than the article as it is not paywalled, but the article can be found at [18]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gained significant attention on social media. --- Evans1982 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Attention on social media" is not acceptable, you must produce an RS per WP:GNG of whe she is the main subject. Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There are some blogs and opinion pieces, but no actual journalism. The book she claims to have written has not been published yet, so WP:NAUTHOR doesn't apply. Bradv🍁 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've seen her on Twitter, and blocked her because I find her parody tweets annoying. What I don't see is significant coverage of her. I think this is WP:TOOSOON, my crystal ball expects that there will be enough coverage by the end of the year, but there isn't such coverage right now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- and fight lazy and uninformed deletionism everywhere it spreads. The people posting delete clearly did not bother to do so much as a Google search before they asserted that there were no RS sources for her. And the one that did proceeded to whittle away at the sources they found with irrelevant objections that are not germane to a deletion decision. Even worse, one even point blank stated their bias against her. (And the fact that the book hasn't been released yet is a shibboleth for notability? So what that implies is that after the book is released, a magic event will occur that will suddenly make her notable. What?) Come on, seriously Wikipedia. Come on. Keith D. Tyler 03:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • after the book is released, a magic event will occur that will suddenly make her notable - YES! That "magic event" is substantial coverage of her in independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even going to address the incivility in your comment but calling my well reasoned and cited assessment of the sources "irrelevant and not germane to a deletion discussion" is inherently untrue. If she becomes notable in the future, we can restore the article but we can't just assume she will when there is a dearth of actual, substantial coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I removed your comments from within mine - you're welcome to re-add them as your own table or comments but please do not edit mine. Praxidicae (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "fight lazy and uninformed deletionism everywhere it spreads". I wish all AfDs had a table like Praxidicae's above. That is an inappropriate statement, and even more so when you produce not a single RS per WP:GNG of whe she is the main subject? Britishfinance (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page has potential for growth. If she fails to become widely noticeable by the time her book is published, we can safely delete her page. If she does achieve that status, then the public will likely want to learn more about her. In that case, Wikipedia would be ready to serve. Nerd271 (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "potential for growth" is not acceptable (WP:TOOSOON); you must produce an RS per WP:GNG of whe she is the main subject. Britishfinance (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can I remind editors that Titania McGrath is a fictitious character, and so arguments based on BLP policy, such as WP:BLP1E need to be applied with caution. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is she? I thought she was a satirical persona of a real-life person, possibly of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She's every bit as real as Godfrey Elfwick. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Praxidicae. Analysis confirms the subject does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find a solid quality RS where she was the main subject of the article/piece. The references are either from junk sources, or mention her in passing and/ or with others. This is a "contrived" case that only proves existence, but not notability. Twitter followers (as youtube-hits) are junk and fake, and are not part of WP:GNG for a reason (the penny will drop on why people with seemingly huge twitter/youtube followings who are ghosts even the 2nd tier media). None of the arguments for "keep" above produce a single solid RS on this subject except to non-WP policy arguments on her "popularity on twitter" or potential "future" notability. Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Praxidicae. Subject does not meet WP:GNG and the sources used are not reliable per WP:RS. Most are questionable and self-published sources and inherently unreliable. Editors citing "potential" for growth plainly do not understand WP:TOOSOON. WCMemail 12:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sympathetic to the argument that WP:TOOSOON is the right approach here, given that relatively few new sources have turned up since the ones I found at the start. What's causing difficulty here is the rather strident tone of some of the delete !votes, with overtones of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, leading to some equally unfortunate replies. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. Few of the Keep arguements have provided any new RS or been able to challenge/refute Praxidicae's analysis. Britishfinance (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as WP:TOOSOON but the Evening Standard is definitely a reliable source, its in tabloid format (as The Guardian is now) but the content is not tabloid content, its the leading evening newspaper in the UK and well respected Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 19 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. Tone 16:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rxbyn[edit]

Rxbyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. There are dozens of references in the article but they are all to YouTube and similar hosting services. I can't find any independent sources that discuss this individual significantly. Google search for "Rxbyn" comes up with fewer than 100 results; same with "Ja'Cory Lavine" and "Drowning at Dawn". ... discospinster talk 14:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom GN-z11 ☎ ★ 16:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with no indication of notability. Teemu08 (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Problem with having such a unique name is that it is easy to confirm virtually zero notability. Not a single decent RS of which he is the main subject. Given scale of bio and references, and his desire to use WP to support his notability (it is meant to be the other way around), serious consideration should be given to Salting. Britishfinance (talk) 15:56, 19 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. Tone 16:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica[edit]

Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODed by article creator because the journal "has been a member of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE) since 2018 [19]. The journal follows high publication and ethic standards recommended by this organization (this is why it couldn't be regarded as a predatory journal, but instead it is a legitimate scientific journal. References have been supplemented." None of this goes even slightly towards fulfilling either GNG or NJournals. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:27, 12 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. Tone 16:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kick-Ass (film series)[edit]

Kick-Ass (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "film series" is simply one film and its sequel. There's nothing here that cannot be included in either of the film's articles. The third movie can be moved into a sequel section of the second film. The spin-off can be included in either. It is not confirmed that either of these films are official. Both of the existing films are also just a header and a link. I strongly recommend merging the contents of this article with the articles of the two existing films then deleting it. -- /Alex/21 12:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since two films do not make a film-series article. Three is the minimum, generally speaking, and I do not see a reason for this pair of films to have such an article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Two films does not a series make. PC78 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per others comments. StaticVapor message me! 18:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge most of the actual content is about the graphic novel...Joe (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merger and deletion would be contrary to our policy of retaining article histories for attribution. See WP:MAD. Note that Kick-Ass is a multimedia franchise now – comics, games, movies, merchandise, etc. Perhaps the page might be developed to include all such aspects. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really a series; just a film and its sequel. At this point it's WP:CRYSTALBALL.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is done all wrong, this article isn't needed. As Andrew D. has pointed out it's a franchise, I think a new article of Kick-Ass (franchise) is needed which tells the readers about the comics then the movies. The useful content can be merged into a franchise page. Govvy (talk) 10:10, 19 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. Tone 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Berthold[edit]

Richard Berthold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some casual reading of the noticeboards brought this to my attention. This is WP:BLP1E-that-nobody-cared-about-after-a-week-or-so. We ought not memorialize every stupid thing that briefly made the papers. Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've significantly cleaned up, expanded, and sourced the article. He's borderline for WP:PROF (only one properly published book; retired as associate) but I think the many in-depth published reviews of his book and newspaper coverage of three controversies he's embroiled himself in (not just the 2001 one) give him a pass of WP:GNG and maybe WP:AUTHOR. And certainly there is more than one event here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Evidence for his significance beyond the 9/11 controversy is also provided by the fact that eight of our articles included references to his book. I doubt that the addition of those references was politically motivated, as (until I did so today) none of them linked to the article on Berthold. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that scholars writing about academic freedom in multiple university press books over several years have continued to discuss the event, and Berthold's role in it, seems to contradict the nominator's assessment. And, as David Eppstein has shown in the article expansion, it's at least a WP:BLP2E situation. Whatever other notability criteria might apply are bonus points, as the subject passes WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep BLP about eccentric academic maverick. Just passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep A technical WP:NPROF pass. Not sure this BLP will survive long-term. Britishfinance (talk) 16:02, 19 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. Tone 16:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims Most Civilised, Yet Not Enough[edit]

Muslims Most Civilised, Yet Not Enough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a self-published book. It's been published by Lulu.com and "Mission Publications" which seems to be his own company.[20] I can find a book review on an antisemitic right-wing site[21] owned by Veterans Today and it's mentioned on a Veterans Today related site, PressTV, also spouting the same rubbish.(eg "Zionists are behind the notorious multi-billion-dollar Islamophobia industry")[22] but those aren't reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 11:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I can't find any reliable and independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 12 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. Tone 16:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Pastafarian Church of Costa Rica[edit]

Neo Pastafarian Church of Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, with one news-of-the-weird source in Spanish[23] and another in English[24]. PROD was previously removed, and my subsequent bold redirect ended up looking headed for deletion, but restored to article for process reasons. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, sources in the article are not WP:RS, gsearch brings up nothing, also, checking SpanishWP brings up no article on this (see here). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as does not pass WP:GNG because it is lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This has the feel of a JOKE or a HOAX! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Badly written (also a TNT candidate). Britishfinance (talk) 16:09, 19 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 speedy deleted. The article has been speedy deleted twice by User:Deb, once per WP:G11 and once per WP:A11 (Deletion log for the page). North America1000 14:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Taak[edit]

Ravi Taak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by the subject (who also created Ravi taak multiple times). I do not see any notability. It is great that the subject has 42K subscribers, and it is great that it was noticed by one newspaper, but this is about it. I do not see how the subject passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - promotional and almost certainly created by the subject himself. Deb (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most likely an autobiographical page. User also vandalised other pages. Also, @Ymblanter:, the newspaper you mentioned in the nomination is the user's only. The homepage shows the publisher's name as "Ravi Taak". Csgir (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see, thanks. Then it probably qualifies for speedy. Also, he created Ravi Taak Birmana (deleted in the meanwhile).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have speedy deleted this as G11. Would someone impartial please close the discussion? Thanks. Deb (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: The user recreated the page. Csgir (talk) 11:47, 12 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat Hossain[edit]

Sadat Hossain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meets criteria of Creative professionals. Also, failed WP:GNG. ~Moheen (keep talking) 07:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does he not meet the criterion 'The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews'? Six novels is a good oeuvre. Sadly I'm not in a position to search the Bengali press for reviews, but I'd have thought that at least some of it will have received reviews which would meet this criterion? Alarichall (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article subject seems to meet WP:CREATIVE (Hossain is a novelist and film director) due to the coverage surrounding their works. For example, two of their novels have been the subject of full article book reviews in notable English-language newspapers, and Sadat received a good deal of coverage in Bangladeshi press when he won the 2016 Bangladesh Short and Documentary Film Festival award for Best Director for his short film The Shoes. This coverage satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO at the very least, and is a strong indicator the subject meets WP:CREATIVE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has had his works reviewed in reliable sources and has coverage in rs such as The Observer and The Independent and a number of other reliable sources so passes WP:NAUTHOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 19 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. czar 06:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frosto Drive-In[edit]

Frosto Drive-In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources to support this article. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I can only find one decent source: [this book] on page 72. Even then, it's barely covered. Other than that, seems to fail NCORP? Gilded Snail (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The author's username suggests that the article was created by the family that owns the place and that the page is most likely a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that it fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I found another passing mention, in this blog, but nothing else. Fails WP:SIGCOV as just another local restaurant. Geoff | Who, me? 21:12, 14 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. Tone 16:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil J. Shuttleworth[edit]

Cecil J. Shuttleworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Qwirkle (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Author of article) Adminstrators of such a high profile prison meet notability requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, I think it would be useful, although maybe not required, for you to identify yourself as the creator of this article. Next, is there some policy that dictates this man is inherently notable? If that’s the case, there should be about a thousand articles on Wiki about Assistant wardens...and yet, there appear to be only a handful, all of which you wrote.
Finally, if this man is notable, why is it necceassary to add self-published sources, and, indeed, the same self-published work you have added to...well dozens, maybe? of articles? Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 12 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. Tone 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social Hall (Alcatraz)[edit]

Social Hall (Alcatraz) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No separate notability. Qwirkle (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be citing something that is merely refering to this structure as a waypoint while discussing the local geography, but i do not have a copy handy to verify that. (I will in a week or so; any closer should hold off until then.) You will strike your keep if this proves to be so, right?
The vague handwaving at policy seems more like a case for deletion or merger. WP:PRESERVE especially; even with every problem fixed there is no independent notability. Making 20 or 30 articles where 5 would handle it does no service to the reader. Qwirkle (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it. If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information. Dream Focus 16:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. Per Andrew Davidson. Britishfinance (talk) 16:36, 19 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatraz water tower[edit]

Alcatraz water tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No separate notability. Qwirkle (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cullen328, I think notability is at best tenuous. Can you make a case for notability? Drmies (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Drmies, given that it is a highly visible structure on a very famous National Historical Monument in the middle of San Francisco Bay, and given that it and its graffiti is by far the most visible relic of the 19 month occupation of the island by Native American activists from 1969 to 1971, it should definitely be described in detail on Wikipedia. Just that fact that taxpayers spent over $1 million to renovate an unused old water tower is an indication of its significance. For now, I will leave it to others to decide whether a separate article is justified, or whether this structure can be described adequately in the main article. I see there are quite a few spinoff articles about Alcatraz "landmarks" and perhaps covering all that content in the main article would be unwieldy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most, indeed, almost all of the notable aspects would belong on one of the main articles though, were there one. As to be “spun off”, the edit history doesnt seen to suggest that. Qwirkle (talk) 05:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that WP:SPINOFF is relevant to this discussion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simply removing the many poor sources - note how authorhouse plays a large part in notability - and cutting back the undue focus on the supernatural would allow these..10? 12? articles to be covered by two or three decent ones. Qwirkle (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see no mention of Authorhouse in the current reference list and no mention of the supernatural. Please clarify, Qwirkle. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the first self-published work added. Here’s another. Regarding the supernatural, we have Legends of Alcatraz, unalloyed spookglurge, we have a section in the Prison...  :::::::::...Then we got:
  • Baker Beach All in the Prison article. Also all in the escape article. No ghosts, though.
  • Boat Dock See anything there that doesn’t belong in the main article? (Aside from the factual inaccuracies, of course.)
  • Building 64 Yep, a single rather unremarkable building.
  • Citadel Despite its name, this is about the whole fort.
  • Dining Hall Compare this with its section in the prison article. No space saving there.
  • Former Military Chapel (Bachelor Quarters) Again, a rather unremarkable building
  • Helipad This one, D.g., was already taken behind the barn and shot on sight. An admin appears to have given the coupe de grace without an AfD for it in particular, since it was a redirect to the other red link below.
  • Library Note how little it contains that isn’t in the prison article,
  • Lighthouse Goddamn. A legitimate stand-alone.
  • Main Cellhouse A redirect. Again, legit.
  • Model Industries Building All but a photo in the main article. Sourced to commercial spam
  • Morgue One third of sources commercial spam. Not bad on the duplication, though.
  • New Industries Building Spooky storiez!!! ...and, of course, some mandatory duplication
  • Officers' Club Authorhouse.
  • Parade Grounds Yep, an article on...space. Acreage. Real esate. Flat ground. What made it worse was it was what every link to “Parade ground” on Wiki went to. To compound that, it had a bunch of (duplicative) stuff on buildings built on the space, so like the Citadel article, it was misleadingly named.
  • Power House Notice its all duplication, damned near.
  • [[Recreation Yard (Alcatraz)|Recreation Yard] Authorhouse, twice over.
  • Wardens House Pretty much in the other article, no?
  • Water Tower
Still think we need more spinoffs? Qwirkle (talk)
Qwirkle, we are discussing this specific article not those other articles. I have certainly never said or implied that we need more spinoffs. Please stay on topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This list is directly responsive to your I see there are quite a few spinoff articles about Alcatraz "landmarks" and perhaps covering all that content in the main article would be unwieldy. Here, spinoffs have done next to nothing to decrease the central article’s size, they appear to have been added almost reflexsively, as stubs. How, exactly, does that help the reader? Qwirkle (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Showing that something has some coverage does not establish independent notability, otherwise we would be inundated by articles like [[25]]. This subject is already covered in both the article on the island and the article on the occupation. (The cite given relates almost entirely to the occupation). Questions about independent notability can not be answered ny showing just any coverage; WP:PAGEDECIDE would still have to answered as well. Qwirkle (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable historic San Francisco landmark. No compliance with WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Cullen328's reasoning. I added a referenced bit to the article about how when they rebuilt the tower they repainted the graffiti as well. The information in this article is not found in the main article. I think merging all of these articles into that one would make it too large. Dream Focus 20:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the main article? what, then is this:
Alcatraz Water Tower[edit]
Main article: Alcatraz Water Tower

The Water Tower in 2008, visibly rusting.
The Water Tower is located on the northwestern side of the island, near Tower No. 3, beyond the Morgue and Recreation Yard.[110] The water tank is situated on six cross-braced steel legs submerged in concrete foundations.[111][112]

As Alcatraz had no water supply of its own, it had to import it from the mainland, brought by tug and barge.[113] During the island's military years, there were in-ground water tanks and water tanks were situated on the roof of the citadel.[114] The water tower was built in 1940–41 by the Federal Bureau of Prisons,[115] after the island received a government renovations grant to supply the majority of the island's fresh water.[114][dubious – discuss]

It is the tallest building on the island, at a height of 94 feet (29 m) with a volume of 250,000 US gallons (950 kL) gallons of fresh water. It was used to store potable water for drinking, water for firefighting, and water for the island's service laundry facility.[116][112]}}
At Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary? Everything up to the closedown, nearly as big as the watertower article. So what, exactly, are you calling the main article?
Then you got, by contrast, Graffiti on the Water Tower as caption to a so-so photo as the whole mention on Occupation of Alcatraz, where it is, in fact, relevant. This is what happens when articles get split unneccsarily: gaps, POV forks, etc. Qwirkle (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the information that is not in the main article is:
During the Occupation of Alcatraz, the water tower was subject to heavy graffiti by the Native Americans and has since become a cultural landmark.[3][4] Graffiti included "free Indian land -- Indians welcome."
The tower has been empty since 1963 and has deteriorated, eroded by the salt air and wind. From November 2011 through April 2012, the tower was given a US$1.1 million restoration to prevent "irreparable damage and loss of important historic resources".[3] Steel components were replaced and the tower was seismically upgraded. The lead paint was sanded and the tower repainted with marine paint.[5] They repainted the famous graffiti. [6]
Anyway, the main article is rather long, just have short bits of things and link to the side articles. If this article is merged over all of that should be there, no sense not having the information about its graffiti not with the rest of the information. Dream Focus 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The sources on the historical significance of the graffiti, as well as the coverage its restoration was given, seems to give this one some independent notability. 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.162.112 (talk)
  • Keep, don't merge. Graffiti and coverage of restoration. Britishfinance (talk) 16:35, 19 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. Consensus is that lists where the player has not at one time held their countries all time international scoring record are not inherently notable. Yes there is a reasonable lead and yes it is sourced, but it is sourced to routine match reports and the like, where his scoring is mentioned briefly in a wider context. I'm not seeing Altidores scoring record garnering significant coverage as a feat on its own. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Jozy Altidore[edit]

List of international goals scored by Jozy Altidore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per consensus at WP:FOOTY, developed through previous AfDs, international goalscorer lists should only be created for those who currently hold or have held the record for their resepctive country. Altidore (with 41 goals) is currently third, behind joint topscorers Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey (57 goals; both have FLs of their own). SounderBruce 04:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep consensus aside, this is a well developed article, with a meaty, sourced lead and well defined inclusion criteria. It's more than just a stats-dump posing as an article. Worst case, merge the info back into his own article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - well-written article aside, there is no actual significant detailed/coverage here which justifies a standalone article. GiantSnowman 16:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unjustified fork from article on the individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of Jozy Altidore and it's not like his article is huge like David Beckham's or Messi's. Govvy (talk) 00:01, 19 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little Alcatraz[edit]

Little Alcatraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not separetely notable. Sourcing issues. Qwirkle (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
....Which specifically says such things are often notable ( which can mean in turn they are often not). The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. That seems like an argument not to preseve this stublet. Qwirkle (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it. If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information. Dream Focus 16:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. Per Andrew Davidson. Britishfinance (talk) 16:33, 19 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warden's House (Alcatraz Island)[edit]

Warden's House (Alcatraz Island) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability. Horrendous sourcing. Qwirkle (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How does that address the question of independent notability? Qwirkle (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Violated WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG. WP:I don't like it is not a policy based reason to delete. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, though taking a look at that article, it seems that most of the information here is already included there. The sources currently in the article are certainly lacking - the blogs and personal ghost-sighting websites are definitely not reliable sources. The book that Andrew brought up is also inadequate, as its merely a listing of buildings and locations, without demonstrating independent notability. That really only leaves that small paragraph in the "Alcatraz" book, and the travel guide, neither of which are particularly significant or in-depth sources specifically on the house 169.232.162.112 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Independent notability is already demonstrated by the sources that are now in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First off, the sources in the article included commercial ads, essentially, and self-published works, all of which centered on the building, just as the good sources do, in terms of its relation to the Federal Penitentiary. Nothing else about it mentioned was notable. A boringly common architectural style? can’t establish independent notability. Obviously inaccurate claims? (Franklin stoves were out of production for about a century when this was built, you know.) Can’t establish notability. To have this, you need multiple in-depth sources about it purely as itself, not as an adjunct to Alcatraz Island, Fort Alcatraz, United States Disciplinary Barracks Alcatraz, Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, or Occupation of Alcatraz. Qwirkle (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it. If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information. Dream Focus 16:12, 14 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. Tone 16:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Former Military Chapel (Bachelor Quarters)[edit]

Former Military Chapel (Bachelor Quarters) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single building with no independent notability, sourced to a coffeetable book and a now removed self publhed work. Qwirkle (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the issue of independent notability: at best it is an argument fot merger. Qwirkle (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not independently notable. In addition, the article text seems to have been copied from this this page, which is an attempt to sell a stock image of the building.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 15:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - The one source in the article is a fairly brief paragraph, and the source posted here by Andrew is literally just a listing of the name and location of the building, with no further information. Not enough to establish independent notability, but certainly enough to warrant a merge to the main Alcatraz Island article. Though, as pointed out above, the text matches the text on that image page, so the merged information should be rewritten if its established that the information was copied from that site, and not vice verse. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Violated WP:Before. Meets WP:GNG. WP:I don't like it is not a policy based reason to delete. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to point out exactly what you are seeing that can be considered an argument based on WP:I don't like it? Or are you just randomly throwing pointless accusations out there? 169.232.162.112 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. If the information fits nicely on the main page, so be it. If not, a spin off article is the proper course to hold the information. Dream Focus 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To the deletion nominator, you should not trash the article by removing a principal source to make it look bad, then nominate it for deletion. An opponent of an article should not be deleting content, sourcing before or during an AFD. Leave the material/sourcing in, and make your argument if you must that the content/sourcing doesn't speak to notability. But you're wasting everyone's time if you appear to be trashing the article to make it look bad so you can get your way.
Anyhow, "Keep" per others arguments here. And the source seems valid for detail it supports. --Doncram (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Doncram (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a self-published source. It should never have been in this, or any other article, in the first place.
And no one beyond the creator needed to do anything to make this “look bad”. It looks bad because it is bad. It is an attempt to impart separate notability to unremarkable structures at a notable place. Qwirkle (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion nominator deleted the sourcing again, and I restored it. If they repeat, I will not. However, if they repeat again, would an administrator please block them for edit warring. And it is nonsense that you get to delete a source for material in an article just because it is supposedly self-published. That is NOT valid reasoning. The source is the source for the material. Self-published or highly non-independent sources can definitely be used in Wikipedia, particularly for non-controversial facts. The deletion nominator evidently accepts the facts are correct, because they leave the content in the article, just removed the source. You don't understand sourcing, apparently. --Doncram (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First off, there is no “supposedly” about this. Authorhouse is a vanity publisher, it allows stuff which can not attract a normal publisher into print, if the author pays them enough. Next, when an entire rat’s nest of intertwined articles all contain the same sourcing, it’s a fair bet that those cites might not have been selected for the good of the reader. At best it’s for the convenience of the writer, at the worst it’s a form of promotion of the work cited. Next, the cite does not support the claim made. (You did read it before restoring it, right?) The article states the chapel was used for Sunday school classes, neither unexpected nor particlarly noteworthy, but the cite talks about a different building, the Social Hall. The cite does not support the article, it contradicts it, and yet you’ve added it twice now, @Doncram:? Yeah, maybe some admin attention is needed here, alright. Qwirkle (talk) 08:03, 19 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. Tone 16:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brienne claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem[edit]

Brienne claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article contains original research and the notability of its subject is not verified by reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, selectively, to King of Jerusalem. Specifically, the sourced content in the prose section of this article would be an improvement over what we have at §Brienne claims. But the unsourced speculative "line of succession" can go (as is often the case with these various pretender claims). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note: I'm confused by this article and not an expert. In particular, I can't find any sources that the Brienne Claim was ever made by Sohier of Enghien (or even Walter V of Brienne) or his descents (That is, Hugh of Brienne's claim was legally refuted by the Haute Cour and is not mentioned as being made by his descendants that I can find). Then this article seems to merge the "Brienne" claim to the Neapolitan claim starting with Louis II of Naples. It then follows that claim until Ferdinand II of Naples dies. Then, rather than reverting to Ferdinand's uncle, Frederick of Naples (as the crown of Naples did), it "passed" to his sister, IsabelleII of Naples, and her daughter, Bona Sforza, Queen Consort of Poland. I can't find any sources that follow this argument, either. I also can't find any sources that pass any claims from John II Casimir of Poland to Henry de La Tremoille, let alone a claim to Jerusalem. I don't have any problem with genealogical fictions having articles in wikipedia when they are covered in reliable sources (we have articles about mythological family trees from stone and even iron ages), but I don't even find this in non-reliable sources outside of wiki-clones. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems to be yet another of those anachronistic attempts of modern royalists to decide what the succession 'should have been', based entirely on original research (on or off Wikipedia) and not an actual historical claim. For that matter, I would recommend deletion or at a minimum a severe buzz cut to the entire #Claimant kings of Jerusalem (1291 until today) section of the King of Jerusalem article, much of which is of similar ilk. Agricolae (talk) 21:58, 17 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. Tone 16:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fasaud[edit]

Fasaud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears eight times, according to Marvel Wikia, and page is linked in the body of two articles. Too minor to merge. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:16, 12 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. Tone 16:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Others (R&B band)[edit]

The Others (R&B band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Recorded output consists of a solitary 7" single released in 1964 (which wasn't a hit), and a five-track self-released mini-album 48 years later in 2012. Created by an IP SPA who I imagine must be one of the band members, given the amount of unverifiable biographical detail included in the article. Difficult to search for sources because of the generic name and the fact there are numerous non-related bands also called the Others, including the Others (band) and the Others (American band), but there is nothing to suggest this particular group was/is notable. I've checked out the two best sources cited in the article – firstly, it's true that Brian May cited them as an inspiration, but as he himself says, this is because he was at school with the band, so his inspiration is more peer pressure and jealousy that his classmates had made a record, rather than musical inspiration [26]. Secondly, the Record Mirror citation is a review of the single (on page 17 of that 17 October 1964 issue) which reads in its entirety, "A Bo Diddley number given a raucous treatment by the R & B inclined group. Good vocal and instrumental and loud enough to attract attention."... no description or details of the group at all, bar their genre. The other citations are two teen girl magazines (which I imagine are two further brief reviews of the record), and the two local papers (no inline citations given, but presumably the majority of the local papers' coverage is gig listings). Band was inactive for decades before being resurrected, and currently play their local pub circuit in south-west London, but there are no reliable independent sources that suggest notability. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wholly marginal even to their musical context. RobinCarmody (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even anywhere near borderline, completely fails NBAND (although I admit it is very hard to check this one given the common name and existance of more modern bands with same name). Britishfinance (talk) 16:24, 19 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. Tone 16:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Fountain City Classic[edit]

2010 Fountain City Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly routine, fails GNG / WP:NSPORTSEVENT. The game ended a 6-game win streak in a rivalry and decided a conference championship, with neither team having a significant post-season (2010 NCAA Division II football season). UW Dawgs (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:10, 12 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. No consensus on whether the references are in-depth enough or that she meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Ball[edit]

Catherine Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not finding enough coverage to qualify Dr Ball as notable under WP:BIO. Tacyarg (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've found several reliable, substantial newspaper articles (via ProQuest) including references to Ball as "a global authority on drones". Article's length seem appropriate; it doesn't feel overly promotional (although the edit history does). I will look to adding some references and then the page should be reconsidered. Cabrils (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:47, 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 11:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of coverage - I have added three more references, and there are more that could be added, with more information about her career too. Definitely meets WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This subject does not meet WP:GNG. The article is definitely in violation of WP:NPROMO so at least we need to clean it up. Skirts89 (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RebeccaGreen's !vote above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The documentation shows only such not notable awards as "Queensland Business Woman of the Year ", which are entirely promotional. . DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are definitely some reliable non trivial references available, but not a lot or sustained that I can see, but there is just enough to get the subject over the GNG line I think. (If the subject was a male association football player this would be speedy keep!) Aoziwe (talk) 06:21, 17 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) 01:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching grandmother to suck eggs[edit]

Teaching grandmother to suck eggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICT WP:GNG WP:SFOD. The wikitionary article does a far better job at explaining the concept/phrase that the article is trying to explain does, and I don't think it's notable of a concept enough for it to warrant an article on Wikipedia. AtlasDuane (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @AtlasDuane: The wikitionary link does not work, but if there is a piece on wikitionary then OK by me. I created it 10 years ago, wikitionary was not so well known then. Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wik-tio-nary. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [27], Harry Oliver's Flying by the Seat of Your Pants, and I'm not exactly sure but there may be some relevant information in Max Cryer's Common Phrases: And the Amazing Stories Behind Them. wumbolo ^^^ 22:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a whole WP Category of English-language idioms; this article could be expanded and developed as this is a notable phrase. There is plenty of good material to expand this article here, here. Britishfinance (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there exist sources confirming the existence of this phrase, by no means does this amount to significant coverage, and I don't see anything that would let us add content to this page beyond what a Wiktionary article would cover. Yes, there is a whole category for English idioms-- but those pages are full of things like the history of its usage, its use in notable media and pop culture, references in literature, political context, etc. (See Mexican standoff, Wolf in sheep's clothing, and Crocodile tears for some good examples.) I don't think that there exists information (yet) that would let this article be expanded enough to be worth having (per WP:WORDISSUBJECT)Gilded Snail (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that supports this as a topic beyond the dictionary definition. If any coverage could be shown beyond that (i.e., history etc.) then I could see a rationale for keeping. It is odd that the similar concept of Mansplaining is so much more easy to substantiate despite being only recently created - but this is an example of Wiki's recentism. FOARP (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Researchgate doesn't necessarily indicate a reliable source-- for instance, the publication you linked seems to be from the "Environmental Protection Bulletin - Institution of Chemical Engineers". Nor does the use of a phrase in a paper (without further discussion of it) automatically count as significant coverage of that phrase. Gilded Snail (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't delete this page. It includes useful information about early uses of a phrase I thought was invented by JRR Tolkien. I got to this page from a link on an interesting article about a sort of comparable Chinese expression, "Don't show your axe to Lu Ban." The context is helpful, as I did not understand either axiom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC4A:6F00:F150:D5E0:22FF:4501 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form although I think with the presently available sourcing it's better off perhaps in a List of English idioms, which happens to exist already at English-language idioms#Notable idioms in English. Many of the entries there are already cross-wikilinked to Wiktionary. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable phrase (from UK perspective), clearly needs some development and sourcing can be improved, but these are not reasons for deletion.Polyamorph (talk) 20:18, 19 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 List of hash functions#Non-cryptographic hash functions. czar 06:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XxHash[edit]

XxHash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This keeps getting yanked out of redirect and de-PRODded without any attempts to improve the sourcing and demonstrate notability (not possible, from what I am finding). Either delete or decide on a redirect that sticks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_hash_functions#Non-cryptographic_hash_functions, where it is listed. I was able to find a book reference that looks like a RS, but I don't know the publisher. It may be enough for basic verifiability in a list of non-cryptographic hash functions, but without multiple in-depth reliable sources, the topic fails to be notable. The article had 603 views in the past thirty days, suggesting this is a plausible, searched-for term. Hence, redirect to a list that provides context, and copying over the ref, seems the best way to go. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:41, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_February_12&oldid=1142614345"