Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 February	20 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. czar 22:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Lutz[edit]

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

Non-notable writer. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. No assertion of notability. GregorB (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's got articles in three other languages' Wikipedias, with slight different citations in each, but none of them appear to me to meet WP:GNG in terms of significant coverage in reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are in Croatian. Running them through gTranslate, souce #2 is a write up about his novel that appears not to be a book review #3 is a pre-pub PROMO in a newspaper ("Ivan Lutz published his first ZF novel Roman published the Belgrade house "Magic Book". It will soon be available in the Superknjižare web store, and the promotion in Slavonski Brod will be in autumn".) #4 is a dead link. Fails WP:AUTHOR]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, sources are not good, fails GNG, Alex-h (talk) 08:47, 23 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alton "Big Al" Carson[edit]

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

Not notable, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are technically enough sources for this article to pass WP:NMUSIC. These include: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. The most informative one is probably this one from OffBeat. There are also quite a few sources on Google Books. Gargleafg (talk) 22:55, 13 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) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Gargleafg. I note that technically, he passes WP:MUSICBIO for having toured internationally. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article needs improving but has enough sources to satisfy WP:NMUSIC , Alex-h (talk) 08:55, 23 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. RebeccaGreen's additional sources were not challenged by anyone once presented. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoriya Sasonkina[edit]

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

Not notable Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Really dreadfully written article. No substantiation that this person is notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find articles about her in Vogue Ukraine [6], Cosmopolitan Ukraine [7], a Polish website [8], a Vogue Italia gallery that confirms cover photos, designers, etc [9]. I believe that she meets WP:NMODEL, and AfD is not about the quality of the article, which can easily be edited. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RebeccaGreen. Britishfinance (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Punk Farm. Consensus seems to favor at least redirecting and I believe the two merge/redirect votes are sufficient to close as such. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Farm (film)[edit]

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

Could simply have been redirected, but in ip insists on recreating, fails WP:NFILM. Been in development for years, but no indication the film will ever actually go into production. Indeed, several fansites are saying it's been cancelled twice, once by Dreamworks and once by MGM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Punk Farm. bd2412 T 02:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Punk Farm. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Punk Farm. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Punk Farm. Merging isn't needed, as the entirety of this article is already part of the book's main article. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:26, 26 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 Sixers. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sixer[edit]

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

One of many bands that never really made it. Though there is an AllMusic bio, I am not seeing sufficient indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call. In addition to an AllMusic profile they also got a fairly robust local media article here: [10]. But otherwise their coverage is routine listings of their existence in various genre directories and some gig announcements. Close but not quite enough coverage for their own article. Also note that there is a different band in the Christian rock field called Sixer Six. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think it is so borderline. The members are not notable. Their songs were not notable. No real RS on the band per se. This article has no long-term future on WP and will get deleted eventually. Britishfinance (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reappropriate as a redirect to Cub Scout#Organization, which is where I would expect typing "sixer" into the search box to go to. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 'sixer' is quite a broadly used term so, for me, a redirect to Sixers would work better. Just Chilling (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:23, 27 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. Whilst a basic tally of votes would indicate a keep outcome, the requirement of the closer is to consider the strength of the arguments put forward. /there is an overriding need to consider whether GNG is met. Yes, the player technically meets NFOOTY and yes he is still playing, but since his 16 minute fully professional appearance he has left that club and now plays for a much less notable team. There has been considerable effort to show SIGCOV, but in actual fact, all that this has shown is that the player has garnered trivial mentions in sources that go no further than routine match reporting / transfer talk. NFOOTY is a presumption of GNG and so when arguments supposedly supporting GNG in fact show the opposite, the logical conclusion must in this instance be that the the presumption is incorrect. Perhaps he will play at a higher level later in his career. That is purely speculative at this stage and the article can always be restored should this happen. Fenix down (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Bijl[edit]

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

An article about a 20-year-old footballer who has played in one professional game, for 16 minutes, for a 2nd-tier league in the 2017–2018 season and now plays in a fourth-tier semi-professional league (per Soccerway/Worldfootball.net). There is one four-paragraph article about his moving from the pro team to the semi-pro team (a primary source: media reporting on current event), and his current team's press release announcing his signing (primary, non-independent source). This article does not appear to meet GNG, and just barely meets NFOOTY with 16 minutes of play in one pro game in a 2nd-tier league. It is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article about this subject. (Did I mention 16 minutes in one pro game?) Leviv ich 19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL, and there look to be a number of sources out there. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 09:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I looked, every Google news hit I found was routine game coverage except for the press release and the one four-paragraph primary source article announcing his club transfer (links in our article). Leviv ich 20:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:FOOTY by playing in a WP:FPL. Smartyllama (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the NFOOTY votes above should be ignored, as NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of GNG - however GNG is being challenged here. I went over every single google-news hit on "Clarence Bijl" - there's quite a few - but the vast majority is merely appearance in a list of players at ASWH in rather local sources - which would not be in-depth coverage (mere namedrop). The sole semblance of in-depth coverage I've managed to find is - [11][12][13] - without even getting into the question of whether these are RSes for a BLP - even if we assume they are RSes - they fail WP:SIGCOV as they are not independent of the club (merely re-hashing of PR/interview with the club/Bijl), are rather brief, and cover a single event (his signing by the 4th tier ASWH). As such - it is actually rather obvious that WP:SIGCOV is not met, and absent someone coming up with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - it is a rather clear delete.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As another note - considering the lack of SIGCOV from his stint (mostly) om the reserves of a team in a NFOOTY eligible team (leading to a single cap of 16 minutes in a 2nd-tier league) - and his current role in a non-NFOOTY club (ASWH - 4th tier - Derde Divisie) - this is exactly the situation NFOOTY is not supposed to cover - it isn't that we have an expectation that he will play professionally and be covered - as he's in the semi-pros. While he might make the pros - at the moment it is WP:TOOSOON. Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON is totally irrelevant here. Bijl already played in a full pro team and meets our professional standard! gidonb (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior consensus (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phakamani_Mngadi) a semi-pro footballer who hasn't even played 90 minutes of football in a fully-pro league doesn't actually satisfy WP:FOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. All available coverage in secondary sources is routine (generally related to his signing with ASWH) and there is no way this can satisfy the GNG based on what I can find online. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having played in a professional game makes him notable, in the same way that getting elected to a state legislature makes one notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Except being in state legislature generally lasts more than 16 minutes. We need to have a sense of proportion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it might require more valid sources, but doesn't look inappropriate. Hence it is better to be kept by adding more related references. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY: Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. [...] For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. In other words, the guideline is clear and the delete opinions are not well rooted in our guidelines. gidonb (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant argument. Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (which NFOOTY is a sub-part) - "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (linking to GNG), "...conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind.... NFOOTY does not trump GNG, it merely creates a presumption that the subject meets GNG - the nomination here asserts that the subject fails GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yours is the irrelevant argument as Clarence Bijl also meets the WP:GNG. For sportspeople, however, it is customary to also check if they do pass the professional standard. That professional standard is best detailed in WP:NFOOTY and specifically in the part that I quoted. It is quite exceptional for sportspeople to be kept without also passing the professional standard. Not a problem here. gidonb (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
absent demonstrating that Bijl "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject by providing such references - WP:GNG is not met. Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a problem at all. This is a really weak nomination. That's why 8 say keep and 3 say delete. gidonb (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As all the keeps are asserting NFOOTY and naught else - they should be struck as they do not address the nomination (of failing GNG).Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also wrong. The 8 keep sayers correctly assume that Bijl meets the GNG after the more rigid professional standard was fully met. The 3 delete sayers have the weakest of arguments. Specifically, one argues with the guideline and should be entirely discounted. Classic case of bad forum! The other two and nominator expose an inability to search for valid sources. gidonb (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So far I'm the only one here to present any sources (and I'm arguing to deletion). Absent someone producing sources establishing GNG - he fails GNG. The burden of proof for existence of sources lies on those who claim such sources exists (somewhere) for this semi-pro footballer. Icewhiz (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: If you are arguing that he meets GNG, then please post here your WP:THREE examples of WP:SIGCOV. Leviv ich 16:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on the references in the article. Work in progress. Referencing in the article has the most lasting value. gidonb (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see in the article history I added references to the article before making this nomination. I've done the BEFORE search, in Dutch too, and found, as I said in the nom, "one four-paragraph article about his moving from the pro team to the semi-pro team ... and his current team's press release". The rest was routine coverage, like a one-sentence mention in a game report. I put out the "let's see SIGCOV" challenge above, over a week ago. So far, no SIGCOV. If you do find SIGCOV sufficient to meet GNG, I would withdraw this nomination. But I don't believe it's out there. I don't believe he meets GNG. Leviv ich 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in Brabants Dagblad and Dordt Centraal constitute significant coverage. Now since you did overlook both of these, I will be surprised if you withdraw. (I grant you that you looked around a bit; my assumption is based on interaction with others) In any case, these articles plus the professional standard and the overwhelming support for keep is more than sufficient for any reasonable person to close this AfD as keep. gidonb (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are those two articles, from Barbants Dagblad and Dordt Centraal, in full, with Google translations. I've bolded the mentions of Clarence Bijl.

DordtCentraal (Dutch)	DordtCentraal (English Google translation)
Twee nieuwe verdedigers voor FC Dordrecht	Two new defenders for FC Dordrecht
DORDRECHT-FC Dordrecht heft twee nieuwe spelers aan de selectie voor komend seizoen toegevoegd. De twee verdedigers Clarence Bijl en Julius Bliek zullen op amateurbasis naar de Dordtse Krommedijk komen.	DORDRECHT-FC Dordrecht has added two new players to the selection for next season. The two defenders Clarence Bijl and Julius Bliek will come to the Dordtse Krommedijk on an amateur basis.
De achttienjarige rechtsback Clarence Bijl is afkomstig uit de jeugdopleiding van het Rotterdamse Feyenoord. Deze talentvolle verdediger speelde afgelopen seizoen bijna alle duels voor het A1 team van de club uit Rotterdam Zuid.	The eighteen year old right back Clarence Bijl comes from the youth academy of the Rotterdam Feyenoord. This talented defender played almost all matches for the A1 team of the club from Rotterdam Zuid last season.
Julius Bliek maakt de overstap van VV Kloetinge. Bliek werd recentelijk nog uitgeroepen tot Zeeuws voetballer van het jaar. Bliek is een linksbenige en fysiek zeer sterke verdediger.	Julius Bliek makes the switch from VV Kloetinge. Bliek was recently declared the Zeeland footballer of the year. Bliek is a left-footed and physically very strong defender.

Brabants Dagblad (Dutch)	Brabants Dagblad (English Google translation)
Royaal verlies RKC stemt tot nadenken	Generous loss RKC gives you thought
Het is traditioneel dat RKC Waalwijk en FC Dordrecht elkaar in de oefencampagne treffen. Zaterdagmiddag gebeurde dat in het Riwal Hoogwerkers stadion in Dordrecht. Nog geen week voor de start van de competitie verloor RKC met 4-2.	It is traditional that RKC Waalwijk and FC Dordrecht meet in the practice campaign. On Saturday afternoon it happened in the Riwal Hoogwerkers stadium in Dordrecht. Less than a week before the start of the competition, RKC lost 4-2.
RKC Waalwijk gebruikte het negende oefenduel om twee spelers te testen. Vahid Selimovic speelde links in de verdediging. Illies Bruylandts vormde samen met Roy Rudonja de tweemansaanval. Bij RKC ontbrak Roland Bergkamp wegens privé-omstandigheden was ook Nikki Baggerman er niet bij.	RKC Waalwijk used the ninth exhibition game to test two players. Vahid Selimovic played left in the defense. Illies Bruylandts formed the two-man attack with Roy Rudonja. RKC lacked Roland Bergkamp because of private circumstances, Nikki Baggerman was not there.
Het nieuwe 5-3-2 systeem van de Waalwijkse club roept een week voor de start van de competitie alleen maar vraagtekens op. RKC kwam er aanvallend nauwelijks aan te pas, terwijl het verdedigend toch erg kwetsbaar bleek. Na achttien minuten profiteerde Terence Groothusen van een dekkingsfout. Hij kon de bal ongehinderd binnen schieten na een aanval over de rechterflank.	The new 5-3-2 system of the Waalwijk club raises questions just a week before the start of the competition. RKC hardly came in at all, while it proved to be very vulnerable. After eighteen minutes, Terence Groothusen benefited from a cover error. He could shoot the ball unhindered after an attack on the right flank.
Goed doorjagen van Daan Rienstra leverde RKC een eerste kans op. De middenvelder stuitte echter op doelman Nick Wolters. Daarna duurde het lang voor RKC nog een keer dreigend in de buurt van het Dordtse doel kwam. Een kopbal van Roy Rudonja eindigde in een simpele prooi voor de keeper. De rust leek met 1-0 in te gaan, maar op de valreep sloeg Denis Mahmudov met een prachtige individuele actie toe.	Driving through Daan Rienstra well gave RKC a first chance. The midfielder, however, met goalkeeper Nick Wolters. After that it took a long time for RKC to come threateningly near the goal of Dordt. A header from Roy Rudonja ended in a simple prey for the keeper. The rest seemed to go in 1-0, but at the last minute Denis Mahmudov struck with a beautiful individual action.
Uit de lucht	From the sky
Na de pauze kwamen Mo Mezghrani en Johan Voskamp voor aanvoerder Jan Lammers en Rudonja in de ploeg. De laatste wissel rendeerde. Een voorzet van Quasten werd door Bruylandts in de voeten van de spits gelegd. Dan is het meestal wel raak.	After the break Mo Mezghrani and Johan Voskamp came in for the captain Jan Lammers and Rudonja. The last bill returned. A cross from Quasten was put in the striker's feet by Bruylandts. Then it is usually hit.
Het grootste gedeelte van de tweede helft speelde zich af in de buurt van het doel van RKC. Toch kwam de 3-1 van Clarence Bijl uit de lucht vallen. Die kopte een kwartier voor tijd een voorzet van Mailson Lima Duarte Lopes binnen. Twee minuten later was het opnieuw prijs. Nu werkte Bijl met de voet een voorzet vanaf links binnen.	The majority of the second half took place in the vicinity of RKC's goal. Still, the 3-1 of Clarence Bijl came out of the blue. He headed for a cross from Mailson Lima Duarte Lopes fifteen minutes before time. Two minutes later it was again prize. Now Bijl worked with his foot a cross from the inside.
De doelpunten van Bijl hakten erin bij RKC. Selimovic kreeg na een overtreding uit frustratie geel. Niet alleen de proefspelers overtuigden niet. RKC beleefde een zwakke generale. Daar veranderde de late 4-2 van Noel de Graauw niets aan.	The goals of Bijl chopped at RKC. Selimovic got yellow out of frustration after a foul. Not only the test players did not convince. RKC experienced a weak general. The late 4-2 of Noel de Graauw did not change anything.

Editors can decide for themselves whether this is SIGCOV. Leviv ich 18:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for translating and formatting! The previous two lines (more intro and title) in the Dordt article are also about the player, i.e. 5 sentences in each article. There is more coverage, of course, but this was very good among what I saw. Along with meeting the professional standard, it is more than sufficient. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although 2 is sufficient, a third good article is by SPN Media. Maybe you can add that one as well? gidonb (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.

Krommedijk 360/SPN Media (Dutch)	Krommedijk 360/SPN Media (English Google translation)
Clarence Bijl verlaat FC Dordrecht voor streekgenoot	Clarence Bijl leaves FC Dordrecht for a local
Clarence Bijl speelt komend seizoen voor ASWH. De negentienjarige verdediger verlaat FC Dordrecht en gaat komend seizoen in de Derde Divisie spelen, waarin de Ambachters elfde werden.	Clarence Bijl will play for ASWH next season. The nineteen-year-old defender leaves FC Dordrecht and will play in the Third Division next season, in which the Craftsmen were eleventh.
Bijl kwam een jaar geleden over van de Feyenoord Academy, waarvoor hij tien jaar speelde. De speler kwam bij FC Dordrecht amper tot spelen. Zo speelde hij éénmalig zestien minuten in het eerste en kwam hij tot zeven wedstrijden in Jong FC Dordrecht.	Bijl came over a year ago from the Feyenoord Academy, for which he played ten years. The player hardly played at FC Dordrecht. For example, he played for the first time for sixteen minutes and he played seven matches in Jong FC Dordrecht.
'De TC is uiteraard verheugd dat de multifunctionele Bijl, die onlangs al enkele keren meetrainde, de keuze heeft gemaakt om volgend seizoen op sportpark Schildman te spelen’, zo meldt ASWH op haar clubwebsite.	The TC is of course pleased that the multifunctional Bijl, who recently trained several times, made the choice to play at Schildman sports park next season,' ASWH reports on its club website.

All six sentences are about Bijl so I just bolded my two favorites. Note it's sourced to the club's website. Leviv ich 04:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for more work put in! The following is misleading: the entire article is about Bijl, as should the bold be. Choosing just a few bold phrases misleads the reader. The article is NOT sourced to the ASWH website. Only the quote is. That is good journalism. There is very different info in the article than whatever was on the ASWH website. If you were serious before, you would now withdraw your nomination. FOOTY and the GNG were met and our article is better than the Dutch one. Your arguing under various keeps that the article does not meet the GNG does not hold any water and is in stress with WP:BLUDGEON. You now have a chance to prove that you are true to a clear word given before. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last one. This is the press release from ASWH, on their website, that is explicitly cited by the Krommedijk 360/SPN Media piece translated below (and many others):

ASWH team press release (Dutch)	ASWH team press release (English Google translation)
De technische commissie is bezig om de laatste puntjes op de i te zetten bij het samenstellen van de selectie voor het seizoen 2018/19. Dit heeft wederom geresulteerd in de komst van een nieuwe speler.	The technical committee is working on the final points in the selection of the season 2018/19. This has again resulted in the arrival of a new player.
De TC is met Clarence Bijl overeengekomen dat hij de selectie van ASWH komt versterken. De negentienjarige speler komt over van FC Dordrecht. Bijl is op meerdere posities inzetbaar, maar speelt voornamelijk als rechtsback. In de voorbereiding op het afgelopen seizoen gebruikte FC Dordrecht-trainer Gérard de Nooijer hem echter ook in een aanvallendere rol. Voor hij in 2017 naar Dordrecht vertrok, maakte Bijl tien jaar deel uit van de opleiding van Feyenoord. De Rotterdammers plukten hem als jeugdspeler weg bij zijn amateurclub FC Binnenmaas. De TC is uiteraard verheugd dat de multifunctionele Bijl, die onlangs al enkele keren meetrainde, de keuze heeft gemaakt om volgend seizoen op sportpark Schildman te spelen.	The TC has agreed with Clarence Bijl that he will strengthen the selection of ASWH. The nineteen-year-old player comes over from FC Dordrecht. Bijl can be used in several positions, but mainly plays as a right back. In the preparation for the past season FC Dordrecht coach Gérard de Nooijer also used him in a more attacking role. Before he left for Dordrecht in 2017, Bijl was part of the Feyenoord course for ten years. The Rotterdammers picked him off as a youth player at his amateur club FC Binnenmaas. The TC is of course pleased that the multifunctional Bijl, who recently trained several times, made the choice to play next season at sportpark Schildman.
Wij heten Clarence van harte welkom bij onze vereniging en wensen hem veel succes en plezier bij ASWH!	We warmly welcome Clarence to our association and wish him every success and pleasure at ASWH!

All four sources translated above have between three and six sentences about Bijl. You can't seriously call that significant coverage. The nom already identifies the most-significant coverage of Bijl, which I added to the article before making this nom. It's this 4-paragraph story about the decline of his career and him not giving up even though he was transferred to 4th-tier ASWH. In this one source, he says (Google Dutch-to-English translations) The result was that Clarence Bijl spent almost a season out of the picture to his great disappointment. and In daily life he works at a tire company in Dordrecht.. By Bijl's own words, he is quoted as saying, about his time at Feyenoord and FC Dordrecht, unfortunately nothing came of it in practice, and I finally participated once in a while as a substitute, and I do not see ASWH as a new step up to professional football, but I do not want to think about that at all. It seems even Bijl has said he is not pursuing a professional career. But if editors here want to call these sources significant, or back an SNG that presumes notability for a player who played in one game for 16 minutes two years ago, I can't stop you folks from !voting "keep per NFOOTY" or suggesting a three-sentence mention is SIGCOV. I can't stop you from lowering our standards like that. I just don't understand how you can say with a straight face that this is an encyclopedia and not a football almanac. There is literally, right now, a sentence, cited, in Clarence Bijl, about how he almost scored a goal in a game, but it was blocked. Yes, this deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. :-) Leviv ich 14:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a difference to a player who has finished his career to a player that's starting out, each footballer needs to be weighed on their own merits. As this one is at the start of this career I give more weight to WP:NFOOTBALL and have some faith that additional events will come to push WP:GNG and this is normally the case. Govvy (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing !keep because, though he doesn't meet GNG or have SIGCOV now, he will have SIGCOV in the future, seems contrary to the policy WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, the essay WP:TOOSOON, and similar consensus. Leviv ich 16:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My keep is a weak keep, come back in a few years, if he is 23 and lost to the non-league I would go with delete. However look at Jamie Vardy, this is a footballer who has gone from non-league to premier league. There is always room to return to football league football. Crystal-ball or not, player still passes many interpretation of NFooty. You can't just dismiss a policy because you want too. Govvy (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This particular player has gone from 1st-tier Feyenoord (youth until 2017) to 2nd-tier FC Dordrecht (2017–2018) to semi-pro 4th-tier ASWH (2018–). I don't see how this trajectory indicates he will likely receive SIGCOV soon. NFooty does not trump GNG–it's not more restrictive–and the guideline it's a part of, NSPORTS, specifically says just because a player meets an SNG doesn't mean he must be notable. See the discussion ongoing at NSports talk page. This article is an example where a non-notable player meets NFooty but still isn't notable. That's not ignoring a guideline, that's applying it properly. There is longstanding precedent for articles being deleted even though they meet NFooty (let me know if you want the list of prior AfDs that support this). When the article Jamie Vardy was created, Vardy already had 38 appearances (and 25 goals), and coverage in 3 independent sources. [14]. Met GNG, and didn't just barely pass NFooty, but had 38 pro appearances instead of 1 appearance for 16 minutes. Leviv ich 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijl already has significant coverage, meets FOOTY and meets the GNG. Still, it is reasonable to assume that there will be more coverage as ASWH is continuously covered in the press. He has recently signed another year with the Derde Divisie side. Govvy stands correct at what he points out. With much more playtime vs FC Dordrecht came and will continue to come much more coverage. gidonb (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and if and when that significant coverage comes and his career develops, then we can write an article about him. You'll never find me voting to !keep because someone will become notable in the future, because it's WP:TOOSOON. Leviv ich 14:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon is totally irrelevant here because he meets both the professional standard and the GNG NOW!!! Future coverage is no relevance to significance -Bijl's current meeting of both standards is!- but even then Govvy's analysis makes sense. gidonb (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We're going around in circles now so I don't think it's productive anymore, but my last thought is that I'm just stunned that anyone could call a three- or six-sentence article SIGCOV that meets GNG. Leviv ich 15:40, 26 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 23:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond E. Foster[edit]

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

Article is almost entirely unsourced. Of three sources provided one is dead and two are passing mentions insufficient to establish notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any quality RS where the subject of the piece was on him; most I get are passing references/name-checking is 2nd tier (and lower) RS (which is unusual for a media-BLP that claims to have worked with History Channel etc.). Article is a CV and unambigiously WP:PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not even going to get into assessing notability, this is a WP:NOTLINKEDIN failure. SITH (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also note he fails the prof test as an adjunct. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a long profile of Foster (behing Proquest paywall) Rounding Up Criminals From All Corners; Using diplomatic skills, LAPD's Fugitive Warrant Section detectives work with other agencies to track down fugitives.: [HOME EDITION

Blankstein, Andrew. Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]07 Feb 2003: B.2. ]. Article is certainly C.V. style PROMO. But it may be that he is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability. Does not meet WP:SOLDIER, WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional in tone and content. Unlikely to meet WP:GNG. Grey Wanderer (talk) 07:19, 24 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Island, Croydon[edit]

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

Non-notable building. Fails WP:NBUILD. That a real estate agent is quoted on a local news website as saying the asking price of one of the flats is the most expensive in the town is not sufficient to make this building notable. The other coverage is not in-depth, but is merely routine, for example the pausing of construction. Pontificalibus 18:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of it being such a flagship (alongside Saffron Square) in Croydon. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 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 01:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable building. As someone who is familiar with Croydon, this building is only of local interest (there are many more buildings of greater interest in Croydon), due largely to its location in an odd position in a traffic island. It is otherwise a routine residential building. Only trivial mentions outside of local press of Croydon, and those in the local press amount to no more than routine announcements, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 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 Idols winners. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepal Idol Winners[edit]

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

We don't have any such articles for other Idol versions, at most there are lists of finalists. Furthermore there have been only two seasons of this show, so whatever information is here is just repetition from the main article and really no chance for unique content. I suggest this should be redirected to Nepal Idol or (preferably) List of Idols winners. ... discospinster _talk 20:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I do not really see the value in redirecting it as I am uncertain if this is a viable search term, though I would not be opposed to either. Aoba47 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. An indepth analysis of the only two seasons of Nepal Idol are available in the parent article. For just the winners themselves, List of Idols winners is sufficient enough. I have no preference at this stage of the target article but this particular article is a content fork and needs to go. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 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 redirect to Internal measurement. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koichiro Matsuno[edit]

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

All of the sources are self published sources. ToT89 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If there's a notable topic here, it's his flagship theory, internal measurement and not Matsuno himself. Matsuno has written several papers, but there's effectively no discussion of the author himself anywhere. Internal measurement on the other hand, currently has a profoundly terrible article. If Matsuno's article isn't deleted, it may warrant redirecting there. But an awful lot of the sources for internal measurement are not independent of Matsuno (or Rosen, the other author directly related to the theory); I'm not sure there's enough remaining to declare the idea notable in the project's sense of the term. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Because it's relevant to WP:PROF#C8, he is currently editor, but not editor-in-chief, of BioSystems. I am unable to find evidence that he ever held the editor-in-chief position of that journal. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm in favour of keeping the article. For many years, Matsuno is one of the editors of an internationally renowned scientific journal. A wikilink to him exists from the entry of that journal, BioSystems. So it's not an orphan entry. Matsuno has published many papers, at least one of them in the high-ranking journal "Science" in 1999 (cited 315 times). There are so many Wiki entries about living scientists, so why delete this one? Perhaps the section on his scientific work could be refined and written in full sentences. Ricercatore (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internal measurement. And if nobody fixes up that article, I don't think it retains notability enough for inclusion either. Smells like a fringe theory, but I'm not a physicist so hard to tell.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:01, 25 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Aversano[edit]

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

non notable personality. Sources are just some trivial coverage or self written, non independent articles. Are of no use. Fails GNG ToT89 (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this is straight up bio-spam and he's not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. An Alvarez & Marshal (not even a Tier 1 firm in consulting) section head who has got himself on TV a few times. He gets name-checked a few times on business wire from corporate press releases. No inherent notability and article is bio-spam. Only that the subject has spent so much time putting this BLP article together, it would have been an A7 (although worth running a full AfD as we will be seeing this BLP again, I'm sure). He forgot to put this reference from the New York Post to his BLP Britishfinance (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The coverage is broad but shallow for this run of the mill business person. Almost every lawyer and business person gets interviewed periodically, including me. That does not make me notable, nor him. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 23 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. WP:HEY applies thanks to Julie's work, and there seems to be consensus that is enough. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamla Östberga[edit]

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

Unsourced for twelve years and no article on Swedish Wikipedia so notability is doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We're typically fairly generous when it comes to individual articles for regions and places, as long as a good argument can be made for why they should have their own article. As the Swedish article points out, Gamla Östberga is separated from Östbergahöjden with no simple way to get from one to the other by car; public transportation tend to serve both areas separately. The Stockholm City Museum did a project on Östberga, specifically mentioning a focus on Gamla Östberga and Östbergahöjden as separate entitites. I haven't got access to the exhibition or other material right now, but see the project blog. w:sv:Stockholmskällan indicates that information about Gamla Östberga can be found in two books: Brännkyrka 1913-2013: socknen som blev 51 stadsdelar (ISBN 9789186853297) and Stockholm utanför tullarna: nittiosju stadsdelar i ytterstaden (ISBN 9789170311321). I haven't got access to these right now, but I've added a very basic reference to the article in the meanwhile. /Julle (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Julles improvements and further promised improvements. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Julle's improvements. I have ordered Stockholm utanför tullarna through my library and have planned to add some information from that to the article when I get the book on Monday. (As an aside, I guess Östberga could/should also have a separate article.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. (And if I've misunderstood what Stockholmskällan tells me about these books, and we can't verify the information, well, then maybe we can't have an article. But I find it very difficult to believe there wouldn't be proper sources for Gamla Östberga.) /Julle (talk) 00:14, 24 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 Diary#Other forms of diaries. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gardening journal[edit]

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

Unsourced for 12 years and not evident that there are multiple reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no more notable than the concept of journaling for any other hobby. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is very evident that there are multiple independent sources. Here's a couple, for example: Daily Telegraph; The Journal as Art. Andrew D. (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if not kept, at the very least a merge/redirect to Diary#Other forms of diaries should be made. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree a merge as suggested by Coolabahapple seems sensible. We don’t have articles for Birdwatching journal or Trainspotting diary, which would likewise be non-substantive in my view. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)M[reply]

Comment. @Mccapra: @Coolabahapple: I have made the entry for Gardening Journal in Diary#Other forms of diaries so that the Redirect can be executed (unreferenced of course, as there are no suitable references in the article). However, at least it will resolve this. Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is over 13 years old and effectively unreferenced. It is a WP:TNT case with various disjointed and trivial content; as well as assertions about the most famous keepers of gardening journals that are also unsubstantiated by independent high quality RS. (and are also probably WP:OR). It is a small junk article. TNT it now, and if someone returns to write a decent WP article on "gardening journals" then we can review that. Nothing here worth keeping, and if I started editing this article to remove unreferenced claims, it would be blank. Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline and so it's this !vote which is junk. WP:V only requires sources for controversial matters or quotations and the material in the current draft is neither. If someone wants to adds sources to the current draft then this is easily done. For example, I shall demonstrate by adding a source for the famous case of Thomas Jefferson. Deletion would not assist such improvement; it would be quite disruptive and discouraging. Our actual policy, WP:IMPERFECT makes this quite clear, "Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Andrew D. (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is not "imperfect" – it is junk (and unreferenced junk). You can't add sources to this text it because it would be OR (Thomas Jefferson was famous, but there is no evidence that his Gardening Journal was famous). That is how bad a shape this article is in. WP:TNT is a perfectly valid argument at AfD (as it WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE). AfD often produces these surreal cases where something that has been ignored for a decade gets a reference slapped on it to drag to "no consensus", when everybody knows that it won't be touched for another 10 years, at which time it will hit AfD again. That is the benefit of WP:TNT; let it die in peace. There is nothing here but bits of junk (and OR). Britishfinance (talk) 00:31, 27 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 (withdrawn) AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Chollet[edit]

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

Swiss fighter pilot. Known for being the first female fighter pilot of the Swiss Air Force, which (sadly) is a matter of WP:BLP1E. With a rank of 1LT, a WP:SOLDIER pass is still some years away. I've already added a mention at History of the Swiss Air Force, which is the appropriate level of coverage in my view. Sandstein 18:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. It's clear that other editors don't share my view that being known (only) as the first to do something can be a case of WP:BLP1E, and Lt. Chollet is otherwise quite notable given the amount of coverage she has received. Sandstein 14:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first female fighter pilot in a country's air force is certainly notable. To claim this falls under BLP1E is ridiculous. This is a milestone, not a single event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Keep. Same like Necrothesp said: "The first female fighter pilot in a country's air force is certainly notable". Also we have since a few days more in the web Blick Newspaper,Aargauer Zeitung, [15], and in the "Tagi" one of the big ones of the swiss newspaper [16].. and also The Swiss Federal TV "SRF"TV News Report "Tagesschau". Alpha Eco (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being the first female fighter pilot in the Swiss Air Force is most certainly notable. Seems to tie in with the WP:Women in Red project. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very surprised with proposition of deletion. Whatever happens she stills the first Swiss female fighter pilot in the Swiss Air Force. As a comparison see Caroline_Aigle (First French female in the French Air force piloting jets), see Claire_Merouze (fr) first female pilot on Rafale. Ties in with the Les_sans_pagEs project in Switzerland.Suzy1919 (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the deletion rationale at all. First female fighter pilot in the Swiss Air Force establishes notability. Per Suzy1919, there are plenty of precadents that establish this is sufficient for notability. W C M_email 12:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Alpha Eco's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:19, 21 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 23:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arséne Maffo[edit]

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

Article about former youth footballer who made 2 substitute's appearances (<30 minutes of total play) for a senior side in the fully-pro Paraguayan top division in 2011. The only online coverage of this player is routine (e.g., match reports or statistical database entries plus a name drop in an article by his former academy). In fact, it's impossible to track down what happened to him in the past 5 years, which says something about his notability as a footballer. Prior consensus (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi) is that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG - as is the case here. Jogurney (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 22 minutes of play, 8 years ago (and no career to speak of since) is not sufficient when GNG is clearly failed. Giant Snowman 10:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 25 year old who made two brief appearances 7-8 years ago. NFOOTY merely sets a bar above which GNG is likely to be met, however in this case NFOOTY is clearly wrong as GNG is rather resoundingly not met - a few passing mentions and not much else. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 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 keep. Consensus is that the subject is notable, even if not specifically as a singer. bd2412 T 02:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Tsing-fong[edit]

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

Fan-biography for a singer of a group who lacks independent notability. Masdggg, with 58 edits, is reverting a redirect, turning it into an article that lacks secondary sourcing proving the person is notable per GNG or per MUSICBIO. I don't necessarily think we should delete this, a redirect seems appropriate, but we do need to make clear that we have standards. Drmies (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 看来我必须得用中文才能明确表达我的意思（因为我是中国人，中文是我的第一语言）。您去Google或百度（Baidu）搜索一下，有大量关于吴青峰（Wu Tsing-fong）的报道（主要是中国媒体<含港澳台媒体>），可见其知名度是相当地高，完全具备独立关注度（independent notability）。现在，苏打绿乐队（Sodagreen）虽然不解散，但主唱吴青峰已经开始独立发展（develop independently），有自己的音乐作品和音乐公司，也多次以个人身份参加综艺节目（TV show）及演唱会（concert）。例如，他在《歌手2019》（Singer 2019）既担任竞演歌手，又担任主持人。可惜的是，阁下您并不懂中文，看不懂中文媒体的报道，才误以为吴青峰没有独立关注度。建议您还是搜索他的中文名（Search for his Chinese name）“吴青峰/吳青峰”吧。

Simplified Chinese：吴青峰 Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Traditional Chinese：吳青峰 Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

--Masdggg (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sodagreen, and protect that redirect from reversion. I have some familiarity with this singer and his band. Wu has done very little that is notable outside of Sodagreen, and note that his music award is for one of the band's songs, not for a solo product. His few outside activities, like the 2019 singing competition, can be mentioned as historical tidbits in the band's biography. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above that he has no notability as a solo singer. The 2019 TV show, while popular, does not help his case. However, he appears to be a very notable songwriter. The zh.wiki article lists 128 pop songs he wrote for other artists since 2004. Winning "Best Composer" at the 18th Golden Melody Awards and "Best Lyricist" at the 27th Golden Melody Awards, IMO, tips the scales towards KEEP. (Even though the winning tracks were by Sodagreen, he was the sole awardee on both occasions, as far as I can see.) Another consideration is that Sodagreen has apparently entered a hiatus, and as mentioned above, Wu has been developing independently, not just as a singer-songwriter, but also as a TV show host and actor. Timmyshin (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Masdggg's reason --Mariogoods (talk) 10:27, 26 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 23:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frame, Set & Match[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Searching turns up more on a picture framing shop in London. MB 18:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Business with less than 50 people. The reason why it has remained unreferenced for 5 years is because they are so hard to find, this being one of the few. Solid WP:A7 case but worth running the AfD to help prevent its return. Britishfinance (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Colin M (talk) 22:41, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Your Radar (EP)[edit]

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

Notability guidelines. Artist doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. Bernadette51 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find coverage establishing notability. (Though I think there is actually enough coverage of the artist out there that someone could make Luigi Masi if they were so inclined. e.g. 1, 2, 3). Colin M (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also can find nothing about this album except the typical retail/streaming sites. It also qualifies for Speedy Delete #A9 because there is no article for the musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 21 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music in the Komi Republic[edit]

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

This is an unsourced skeleton article that hasn't been improved in over a decade. All musicians and songs are redlinked so there is nothing to work off of to add more content or sourcing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone is able to fill the article with decent content pretty quickly. Mccapra (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Mccapra. Actaudio (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Somebody has just cut-and-pasted a template to get rid of a red-link. Britishfinance (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Colchester stabbings[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. While tragic, not all murders are notable. Coverage is local and contemporaneous. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. While certainly verifiable, and well put together, it does not appear to have "enduring notability." Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete coverage has been local.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 26 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 23:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Jump Day[edit]

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

I tried to look up info about this event (almost 13 years past since it happened) and I don't see the article passing WP:EVENTCRITERIA even under #4. A lot can be found on the idea (which is not directly connected to this) but it acts as a coatrack for the actual event article. – The Grid (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There's a little bit out there about the World Jump Day hoax, but it would make pretty thin gruel for even the stubbiest of stub articles. What I'd ideally suggest here is a redirect to Torsten Lauschmann. There's actually quite a bit of coverage of his work as an artist in general (for example: [17][18]). I'm pretty sure he's notable, and this "event" would be easily handled in context as cultural performance art. But there's a small problem; his article is a redlink, so there's nothing to redirect. I may see if I can do something about that in the next few days, but I've got a lot on my plate; no promises. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: That would be great to add to once the author's article is created! – The Grid (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Squeamish Ossifrage: Lauschmann may well be notable; I recommend checking out Page 378 of Sarah Lowndes's book Social Sculpture: The Rise of the Glasgow Art Scene which might have some information about him according to Google Books. wumbolo ^^^ 10:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness World Records - Vietnamese holders[edit]

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

Not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Simply being in the Guinness Book of World Records is not a claim of notability, and the references are all to that book. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, in particular point 6: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon.. I don't think we need any articles of the form "Guinness World Record holders from X country". Colin M (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/Colin. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. The quote above sums up a lot of problem list type pages, I shale have to remember it. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:06, 22 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Repasky McElhinney[edit]

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

G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion

A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73mmmm (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously not an A7 and any promo can be edited out. Has created a number of notable works and has some of his films in the permanent collections of notable museums such as the MOMA and therefore passes WP:NCREATIVE as well as WP:NARTIST with plenty of reliable sources coverage already in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Definately not an A7 or even G11. Probably more of a technical pass of WP:NCREATIVE (it is easier for a copy of a film to be held, although it does imply that the notable museums does want it); doesn't screen that well on a general GNG. A niche artist, but a pass on WP policy none the less. Britishfinance (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least two of his films (Chronicle of Corpses and Story of the Eye) have been reviewed in the New York Times and similarly respected publications, and this Philadelphia Weekly interview cited in the article shows the existence of some coverage focused on the director himself, rather than one of his films. That said, the article needs a lot of work to meet quality standards. Very few independent/non-primary sources currently cited, lots of extraneous (non-verifiable) detail, and some style issues (e.g. proliferation of red links). Colin M (talk) 22:20, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Night in Japan[edit]

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

Bootleg Michael Jackson album, fails WP:FUTUREALBUM: "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." Popcornduff (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing significant has been written about this album in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an unofficial bootleg that has received no media coverage, and it is simply listed at a variety of retail sites that uniformly tell the consumer that it is unavailable. This leads me to wonder if the album ever actually existed, or if it's just a setlist that has been conflated by fans into a legendary lost album. Either way, it is suspiciously obscure for a Michael Jackson item. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. The fact that ten years later not a single reliable source in the last decade has deemed a Michael Jackson product worthy of review tells you everything. The CD/DVD was distributed by a Dutch company that specialises in releasing "public domain content"... that probably means it was an illegal bootleg recording to start with. Either way, there are no sources other than "it exists". Richard3120 (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above commentary. Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's an unofficial release, but it exists https://www.discogs.com/it/Michael-Jackson-One-Night-In-Japan/release/2930095

Here in Europe is purchasable from many important stores. Here some examples:

https://www.bol.com/nl/p/one-night-in-japan/1000004006523927/

https://www.lafeltrinelli.it/musica/cd-album/michael-jackson/one-night-japan/8712177055180 (now, it's out of print)

https://www.fnac.pt/Michael-Jackson-One-Night-In-Japan-2CD-CD-Album/a259607

DVD version charted in Switzerland and Netherlands.

https://hitparade.ch/charts/musik-dvd/26-07-2009

https://dutchcharts.nl/weekchart.asp?year=2009&date=20090711&cat=d (it is a chart topper in this country)

It was enough to do a research to find these informations writing "One Night In Japan Michael Jackson" on Google. Why don't do researches before to propose the delete? Simone Jackson (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Simone Jackson: We did do the research, and we didn't find any notability for the album... existence alone does not make the album notable, we were looking for articles written about the album. The DVD may be notable, having charted in two countries, but if that's all we can say about the DVD, and there is no prose that can be written about it, then this information is better off mentioned in Michael Jackson albums discography#Video albums. Richard3120 (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is hilarious. Get this hoax out of here. Trillfendi (talk) 04:23, 26 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 as improved. bd2412 T 02:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Grocott[edit]

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

Playing in the Empire Games doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS, but worse, I can't verify that he played. We have a source that says that a H. Grocott (presumably this one, though not certain, could e.g. be his brother Horace Grocott) left for the Games[19], but the other source actually reporting on the games doesn't mention him as part of the team (source gives by name the four team players and the one solo player)[20]. If that source is correct, a G. R. Scott played at the Games instead.

None of the sources are indepth reliable sources about Harold Grocott, but passing mentions or primary sources. Fram (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be easy to misread a cursive Grocott as Grscott. I might see what I can find, although if the Empire Games doesn't meetWP:NSPORTS (surely it would be equivalent to the Commonwealth Games, where that is included in WP:NSPORTS?), there might not be much point. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am happy with the nominators summary of the refs and I can find no new information, big fan of the Grscott mix up idea. However, if he did represent his country that might be notable under the spirit of WP:NSPORTS (as I could not find the lawn bowls Empire games subsection). Hit a paywall with this pages ref, Lawn Bowls at the 1934 British Empire Games (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep. After new work by Paora, but mostly there are so many notable sportspeople with pages who have never represented their country. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep. I've added further references that show that "Harold Grocott" was the H. Grocott that competed at the 1934 British Empire Games: [21], [22], [23]. Clearly it wasn't his brother Horace, as Horace's entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography ([24]) shows that Horace was living in South Canterbury at the time, not Auckland, and it would be expected participation in the British Empire Games would be included in his DNZB entry had it been the case. The one reference naming G.R. Scott as the fourth member of the New Zealand foursome in 1934 is clearly a typo or mistranscription, as all the other references name him as either H. Grocott or Harold Grocott. As mentioned by @RebeccaGreen:, it is easy to see how Grocott in cursive script could be seen as G.R. Scott. WP:NSPORTS is not helpful as it only mentions the Commonwealth Games (formerly known as the British Empire Games) in relation to five particular sports (namely athletics, badminton, gymnastics, rugby sevens, and triathlon), but I'm sure that nobody is suggesting that the Empire / Commonwealth Games are not notable. In this case, we need to consider WP:SPORTSPERSON, which states that, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition". Clearly the Empire / Commonwealth Games is a major amateur competition, and indeed until the advent of the World Bowls Championship in 1966, it was the highest level international competition for lawn bowls. Paora (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the sourcing showing that he (or a namesake, which is less likely) indeed competed. However, that doesn't change the problem that there are no reliable sources giving significant attention to Harold Grocott, only passing mentions (e.g. for his Empire Games appearance). This Wikipedia article is apparently the first time someone has written more about him than one or two lines, and that is not the role of Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see two readings of the guide lines: 1: The person must pass in-depth coverage, in theory, one day (if we had read every book in the world etc.) and all other guidelines are only hints towards that. 2: They are “presumed notable” if they have in-depth coverage or they have done one of the other requirements (have a hit record, a fancy academic award, represent country at big event). I am divided on which Wikipedia should be, but I am clear on what Wikipedia really is, I would guess we would need to delete about 10,000 pages from the NZ project alone with reading 1, with reading 2 we still have a lot of work to do, but are going in the right direction. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep There may be no specific guidelines for the sport of bowls, but based on other WP:NSPORTS guidelines, I would say that he would be notable as he competed in the Empire Games. There are many articles about sportspeople with less sourcing than this one. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There isn't any doubt that Harold Grocott was at the Empire Games because contemporary newspapers reported that. There are numerous sources on Papers Past including photos of the New Zealand team. (and now that I've had a closer look at the article I see that Paora has already added an external link to that photo; pure coincidence that we both picked the Northern Advocate as the photo appeared in many newspapers) Schwede 66 19:39, 22 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chendooram[edit]

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

A Siddha medicine but fails GNG comprehensively. Also, see WP:MEDRS. ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Zoom! some possible sources: "Standarization of Kantha Chendooram" from Ancient Science of Life, "Chendooram" (brief summation of what it is) from Complementary and Alternative Medicines in Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Approach, "Acute and Sub acute Toxicity Study on Siddha Drug Rasa Chendooram" from International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, "Physico-chemical analysis of Arumuga chendooram" from International Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Pharmacy, "Toxicological Studies of Lingha Chendooram-1; a Siddha Drug" from Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (plenty more out there). Zoom! Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, please re-read WP:MEDRS (and esp. this section) which is very very necessary whilst maneuvering in these areas.....

Thus; let's zoom a bit more (5x-?!):--
- Published in a journal of dubious quality; not indexed by MEDLINE. I note that a Pubmed search for the string outputs a few entries over this journal, alone. N
- IJPSR is a predatorial journal. N
- IJRAP is a predatorial journal. N
- IJPS is published by OMICS; which is prob. the most pathetic predatory publisher out there. N
- Now; all that is left is the CRC book and I ask you to seek and read it's reviews (or rather of that series of publications)......:-) ∯WBG^converse 14:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can be redirected to Siddha (which's a mess) or somewhere like that. ∯WBG^converse 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for letting us know about the predatory journals (i didnt do any checking on these sources hence the "zoom zoom":)), so it doesnt look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourceless for almost 5 years. Bye Chendooram! Trillfendi (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the absence of substantive coverage in reliable, intellectually independent sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This is unreferernced/unsupported material that could be anything from OR to junk (or a hoax). Even if the topic was notable, the content is WP:TNT material. There is no point trying to slap a few refs onto contrived cases to get them through AfD, when nobody is going to touch them after and they have no long-term future in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatafat[edit]

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

I spot trivial name-mentions over this reminisce, this book and this DaliyMail piece. Atlas Obscura is user-generated content and not reliable.

Fails WP:GNG comprehensively. ∯WBG^converse 13:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a shame the Atlas Obscura entry isn't reliable, because it's the only in-depth source of information I was able to find. Mentioned in a lot of 'listicles' (e.g. 1 2, 3) but their reliability is questionable, and they don't have much of substance to say on the subject anyways. Colin M (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, its surprising that there is no "List of antacids" article, indeed the category on Antacids only shows a few brand names so it looks like an antacid needs to be pretty well known to warrant a standalone (of course, also with plenty of WP:RS), as Fatafat doesnt its a delete from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the Daily Mail is involved it certainly can’t be legitimate. Trillfendi (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Miller (author)[edit]

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

Cannot see how this passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Perhaps it's a result of having a fairly common name, but a web search turns up nothing of note on this person. Domeditrix (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Colin M (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:57, 22 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Nassetti[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E. All press about this individual is in regards to the accident. Probably should be a redirect, but several IP editors insist on having an article, so here we are. Please also see WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator's analysis under WP:BIO1E. Colin M (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – per WP:BIO1E, same as Pier Paolo Racchetti. Non-notable outside the context of Flight 129 crash, in which he was also simply an observer. His medical history is somewhat unusual, but nothing that cannot be covered in the main accident article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As citations for career don’t seem to exist. Trillfendi (talk) 04:08, 26 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 withdraw. Ref looks good. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casa-grande[edit]

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

No reference for the article. Largely original research. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this source (available in google preview) confirms most of the article (and per my search there are several other sources, not all of them are open however, and I will note that there is a specific very large plantation in Peru called Casa-grande which is a separate topic). Subject of notable full length books - e.g. Casa-Grande & Senzala. The Portuguese wiki is sourced. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, then perhaps the article should be converted to be about that specific plantation rather than a generic term for Brazilian plantations? I had a BEFORE search and the search results seem to pull hits of other Casa Grandes. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I threw a few good quality refs at the article. I am convinced that the Brazilian Casa-grande institution is notable. The large Peruvian plantation (single) may also be - but that's a separate issue.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Icewhiz, ref looks good to me so I'll just close this as withdraw --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:36, 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 delete. no policy-based reason to keep. Frankly the lone keep !vote was promotional. After I judged consensus I looked at the article, and it is blatantly promotional. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERA Prometheus[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as advertizing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Added much needed criticism to the claims of "universal affordability. Also removed the "Titan Edition" section as it made the page looks like a sales page. Before the page was hastily deleted, this "Titan Edition" section was also continually being stripped down. This clearly shows there was multiple and ongoing good faith efforts still being made on this page to fix the issues. Lastly, this watch model is notable and encyclopedic within the luxury industry. It is an (1) atypically priced watch model going for 1/10th the market price (affordable within haute segment as verified from 3rd party sources) and (2) it is the most crowd funded watch of its kind coming out of NYC, which is a fashion authority. Izazii (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as CSD requester). The article is clear advertising for a Kickstarter product that is not the subject of substantial coverage. The NYTimes and Vogue references doesn't mention the product. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find evidence of notability. The only citation that resembles any kind of significant independent coverage is this one from "The Levity Ball", but that writeup is peppered with affiliate links. Colin M (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:18, 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 keep. There is fairly clear consensus that this incident has fairly substantive coverage in reliable sources, and thus is basically notable. If those advocating to merge this still feel strongly about it, a merge discussion might be a better venue. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Amanda Froistad[edit]

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

NOT NEWS, and BLP1E DGG ( talk ) 09:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Note that creation of a page about a 1995 murder is generally not a case of NOTNEWS. In addition to ONGOING local coverage: Rapid City Journal, 2002 Settlement awarded in girl's death, a case went to the State Supreme Court [25]. There is an academic article already on the page. And there is WP:SIGCOV in books: Here: The Third Lie: Why Government Programs Don't Work—and a Blueprint for Change, By Dean and the Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence Richard J Gelles, Richard J Gelles, Routledge, 2016. and here: Out of Harm's Way: Creating an Effective Child Welfare System by Richard Gelles, Oxford University Press, 2017. User:DGG, do you want to rethink this one, maybe just tag for improvement?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this content was moved from the recently G11'd Moderation Management (which also leaves me nonplussed). This has substantial coverage in scholarly sources and news sources (as pointed to above). It's also a very important case in terms of the legal functioning of addiction recovery groups and support groups in general, not to mention the online bystander effect. - Scarpy (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I agree the policy is ONEEVENT, in general, - NOT NEWS and BLP1E are not relaly relecant. my error. But it would seem that the academic work cited deals with this onl in passing, or as an example. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined to nominate this page for deletion when reviewing it yesterday. I'm not convinced either way about notability, but there are very clear content issues with the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The case can be briefly mentioned in a page on another general subject, such as the Bystander effect (just as it was mentioned in a couple of books), but it clearly does not deserve a separate page - agree with DGG. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I need to admit that I did not perceive some o the general concerns, that might make it more suitable for merging than deletion. DGG ( talk ) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I urge page creator User:Defendingaa to return and improve the page, which does not adequately describe this crime or its significance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in scholarly literature [26]. ——SerialNumber54129 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event has adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG. It does not violate WP:BLP1E because the article is about the event. And the article is consistent with WP:ONEEVENT.Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - to Bystander effect#Larry Froistad. The only notable part of this tragic filicide is the bystander effect part. There's info at that destination now, but perhaps a little more could be merged, along with the reaction info I just forked off into its own section. On a related note, I do think that Moderation Management should have its own article. I've heard of it and know several people who have participated in the group. Because of the group's leadership's reluctance to turn in Mr. Froistad, this tragic incident would warrant a mention in the article's history section. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Timtempleton: please see this ANI and related conversation. We had reached a consensus on that page that the amount of information previously in the Moderation Management article on related to the death of Amanda Froistad looked WP:COATRACKish. Without speculating about User:DGG's intentions, it's very unfortunate that this information can't be referenced in this AfD as it's now gone (he nominated this page for AfD and the Moderation Management page for speedy deletion). The Moderation Management deleting admin, User:RHaworth either doesn't want to discuss this or is on some kind of wikibreak. I asked for a deletion review but imagine that will take several days for an outcome. I really don't think this AfD should proceed without that context, but here were are. - Scarpy (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Timtempleton: (sorry for the double dip) if we're talking about notability "outside" of the WP:GNG, this is notable for reasons other than the bystander effect. It's a high profile case that establishes a legal--and to some extent social--precedent for information that's shared within peer-run support groups. Plenty of support groups, twelve-step groups in particular, encourage 'anonymity' among members. In meetings guidance is given along the lines of "whom you see here, what you hear here, when you leave here, let it stay here." It has encyclopedic value to have reference material showing the legal and social extent to which this is true (or not true). - Scarpy (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Scarpy: you bring up an interesting point, but I'm still not sure that being an example of the downside of the anonymity given perpetrators due to doctor/support group/patient confidentiality sends this into keep territory. I could see how this might contribute some material for a new section in Self-help groups for mental health#Criticism, named something like "perpetrator confidentiality". Reading this again makes it seem that it's a Venn diagram of themes that can feed multiple articles with short info but in aggregate isn't enough for a standalone article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 03:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: To your last point, there is more than enough WP:RS here for the WP:GNG. To your other point, legal cases clarifying expectations of anonymity in cases of perpetrators and non-perpetrators alike are important. Cases like this one set the precedent that in the US there is nothing like therapist-client confidentiality or attorney-client privilege. Even if support groups encourage anonymity/confidentiality, it's important to have cases showing the extent to which this carries (when in the US is not at all, legally speaking). Depending on your opinion, this is either a feature or a criticism of support groups in the US. (I believe Germany has some laws governing support groups). This passes the WP:GNG and has other encyclopedic value in the case of peer-run support groups and the bystander effect. This is what Wikipedia is here for. - Scarpy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article's creator. The extensive references unquestionably establish notability. Keep in mind that this murder is not only notable as being an example of the Bystander Effect (as a couple delete votes incorrectly state); it is also notable and described in reliable third party sources as being an example of someone dying because of bureaucratic incompetence. For example: Gelles, Richard (2016). The Third Lie: Why Government Programs Don't Work—and a Blueprint for Change. Routledge. ISBN 1611320526.. I agree that the article currently is, at best, start class, and I hope to have some time this weekend to expand and improve it, but a new article being imperfect is not grounds for deletion. Defendingaa (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article; it is no longer a stub and is of higher quality than it was when nominated. Defendingaa (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment compiled a list of WP:RS that could be used in the article, located here: Talk:Death of Amanda Froistad#List of WP:RS for this article. - Scarpy (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making that large list of references. With dozens of references from notable sites (news accounts about the death; news accounts about the trial; news accounts about the lawsuit caused by the death; accounts in books about how it’s an example of the Bystander Effect; accounts in books about how her death was an example of bureaucratic incompetence; etc.), I think the article’s notability is without question. Defendingaa (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because of the non-trivial coverage in reliable sources placed on the talk page. Please restrict the article to reliable secondary sources, rather than primary coverage such as news reports. Nyttend (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slam-dunk keep, but rename to Murder of Amanda Froistad as her father was convicted of the crime and thus the M-word can be used in the title. This was notable at the time—I still recall it today and was surprised we didn't have an article on it until now, but maybe given the things I've been the one to start articles on from long ago I shouldn't be. Sources? The New York Times covered it even though it happened way out on the Plains, there is scholarly work on it, because it's notable for people on the email list not reporting it and, in fact, getting mad at the people who did because they violated the list's confidentiality. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but moving an article while AfD (Article for deletion) is in progress can cause issues, so I will do this if the article passes AfD. Defendingaa (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. BLP1E not relevant as this is on the crime, not the person. The crime has been the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple books (apparently due to the peculiarities of the welfare system failure, confession in an e-mail list, and details of the crime) over the past 20 years and easily passes WP:NCRIME / WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WooPlus[edit]

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

insuffient evidence of notability ,and promotional as well DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found these from Google to help with the discussion- BBC News, PEOPLE Magazine, Bustle, VICE, Huffington Post Australia, AskMEN, The Daily Dot, Daily Mail, Cosmopolitan and Femina. Hope this helps other reviewers. Csgir (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam by an WP:SPA who gamed WP:ACPERM & ran away. Should have gone A7/G11. Cabayi (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam. I have blocked the creator for likely undisclosed paid advocacy. MER-C 18:17, 25 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. Consensus is to keep but there is no consensus on examining if this will gain more coverage in the future. Discussion about the title belongs on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 08:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Balochistan attack[edit]

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

It doesn't merit a standalone article per WP:ROUTINE & WP:NOTNEWS. Two minor & seperate incidents were combined based on WP:OR to create this article. — Bukhari (Talk!) 08:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "WP:ROUTINE & WP:NOTNEWS" would be decided later. While most incidents get coverage only for a single day, this incident is receiving coverage for at least 3 days now. At this moment it is rather clear that this incident is still receiving significant coverage.[27][28] We prefer what reliable sources say and since they combine "two minor & separate incidents", then we will keep doing the same. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per significant and continued coverage. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources and it is too early to judge for sustained coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then please move "2019 Balochistan attack" to "2019 Balochistan attacks".— Bukhari (Talk!) 14:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say that is accurate. In any case you can initiate an WP:RM if you want. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remind both page creator and Nom of WP:RAPID.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close. Requesting speedy close so title decision making can proceed which is stalled pending the outcome of this discussion. --В²C ☎ 19:57, 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 keep. While I personally have sympathy for the argument to delete, I cannot close this any other way. The existence of substantive coverage is a difficult argument to overcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Christina Margarethe of Hesse[edit]

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

There is no indication of independent notability.The subject was born into a deposed family and married into another deposed family. Virtually everything in this article is about other people: her father, her grandparents, her great-grandparents, her half-siblings, her husbands, her children, her grandchildren. She is solely of genealogical interest, and Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited. Sources are terrible (blogs, genealogy sites, the Daily Mail) or about other people. —Kusma (t·c) 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seeing no reason to single this article out for deletion among the many hundreds Wikipedia maintains on modern persons of royal descent. Rather, reliable sources needed to be substituted for the many sub-standard references included. That has now been done, as there are plenty of reliable sources on this niece of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who is probably the world's best known living royal male, while Christina of Hesse lived into the 21st century, was in the line of succession to the British throne, married the son of a 20th century king, and walked as a family member in the Westminster Abbey procession of the Coronation of Elizabeth II. It is standard in English Wikipedia to include bios on those who belong to families that ruled nations in modern history, so long as reliable sources continue to publish updated information on their lives. This woman meets that criterion. FactStraight (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A difference is that this article contains essentially no information about Christina Margarethe herself. But you are right, Wikipedia is full of articles about irrelevant relatives of former heads of state, most of which should be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being married to someone who is the son of someone does not make a person notable. Being the daughter of someone who is the sister of someone who is married to someone does not make a person notable. Walking in a procession does not make a person notable. A person is notable if there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is no such coverage of Christina Margarethe. We have articles about royal children not simply because they are someone's children but because there is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Everything there is to be said about Christina Margarethe and found in reliable sources is that she existed, which can be done in the articles about her relatives. Her relatives are all this article talks about anyway. I nominated this article for deletion because I was dumbfounded by how much it goes against WP:Notability, a core policy of Wikipedia. There is other crap out there and keeping this crap because other crap exists is the way to build a crappy encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in reliable sources, not individual merit or achievement, is the criterion for notability in Wikipedia -- or most modern royalty would have no articles in this encyclopedia. It is the nature of persons of royal descent that significant coverage of their dynastic affiliations and the events of their lives is rooted in their kinship to monarchs, and so long as that coverage occurs in reliable sources, it contributes to their notability. Some may feel that being selected one of the few foreign, non-Commonwealth participants in so extremely rare and widely covered a ceremony of the modern era as a modern European coronation, such as that of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953, does not mark that participant as notable. Others may reasonably consider that it does. FactStraight (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deposed or not, this is still someone who is a recent member of one of the aristocratic families of Europe. That's not NOTINHERITED, that's membership of a group which makes its members implicitly notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it is hereditary implicit notability that is not inherited? —Kusma (t·c) 09:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Dyer (minor UK TV character) has just discovered that he's a descendant of some king or other, maybe 54th generation from Edward II. His ancestor is clearly notable, the genealogy is proven and sourcable, the UK has some TV going on about it just at the moment. That's under WP:NOTINHERITED. He has inherited this claim from someone actually notable, but he isn't.

Christina Margarethe of Hesse though is more than this. She was a member of the House of Hesse in her own right. Now, the Grand Duchy of Hesse was deposed after WWI and the House lost its power, but that doesn't stop them existing or its members being notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of her in media of the time (e.g. Reuters news agency), including what she studied in London, etc. I will add info and sources later. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Referencing improved by RebeccaGreen. Britishfinance (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FactStraight. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just placed a request for this discussion to be close here. Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not satisfied at the quality of arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 08:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the information in the article isn't about the individual herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.10.156 (talk) 14:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTINHERITED. The press coverage is routine announcements as far as I can see (many of the sources require a subscription to newspapers.com). Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read through the article, I think royalty holds a certain amount of notability and is very well recorded. I find it hard to understand how Princess Christina can fail notability guidelines when there is more than enough around to pass WP:GNG and from what I see the article clearly passes. I don't think WP:BEFORE has been done at all. Govvy (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements to the article by RebeccaGreen. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Royalty is almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We might think that due to the political changes that occured in the 20th century she is not notable. While that is a politically correct assessment, that is not the definition of wiki-notability. Our definition does not ask if the subject should attract attention, rather it asks if it actually does attracts attention. We are only to record. Not an ideal solution as this this cuts out a lot of very important subjects due to lack of media attention, but we cannot have it both ways. Agathoclea (talk) 09:40, 22 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Berler[edit]

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

Fails WP:FILMMAKER as the film she made isn't really notable. Unless "Outfest award for Emerging talent" can be considered notable and significant, she also fails WP:ANYBIO. Point to note, the creator of the article is named CBerler. Daiyusha (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find sufficient RS coverage. The article's only independent source (the SF Chronicle article), only mentions the subject once in passing. Colin M (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree per nom and Colin M. Nothing here outside the SFC. Her film is not notable, she won't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Britishfinance (talk) 00:50, 27 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason JetPlane[edit]

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

Article does not seem to meet the BLP notability guidelines. Article has little sourced content, and coverage in the media is extremely thin. UnkleFester (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. Colin M (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is closer to an A7. Almost a ghost in terms of any searchable RS (despite this unique name). Of the three refs in the article, one is broken, and the other two don't come close to being either an RS. Britishfinance (talk) 00:45, 27 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Castellon[edit]

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

Invalid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:INVALIDBIO). Claim to notability is through the subject's relationship with Nelly Furtado. Subject is not notable in his own right. UnkleFester (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls shy of WP:NBIO criteria. The Sound on Sound interview is promising, but I can't find any other sources that deal with the subject beyond his relationship with Nelly Furtado or his association with Timbaland. Colin M (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per WP:SUBNOT. He should be a mention on Nelly Furtado's page Actaudio (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. A search shows most of his notability is from his marraige, with a few references to his work with Timbaland (only passing references). Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 26 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagie Haven[edit]

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

Fails notability under WP:ORG. Was previously deleted multiple times. Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous AFD was in 2006. The topic appears notable and the current article is extensively sourced including numerous sources later than 2006. It appears to meet wp:GNG. What previous "multiple times" are you referring to? --Doncram (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playing devil's advocate: the page could be said not to pass WP:AUD because the coverage is all "local". However, WP:AUD is a garbage guideline that should be ignored - according to what it says even companies that have received coverage in Andorran newspapers fulfil WP:AUD but ones given coverage in "local" press of much larger areas do not fulfil WP:AUD. Additionally I see coverage at nj.com which counts as "state-wide" coverage. There might also be said to be WP:PROMO issues with this page, but I think it's as balanced as it can be. Finally I suppose it might be said to be purely WP:MILL or even WP:ROUTINE but I think the fact it's popular with students at Princeton and to some extent appears to be a cultural phenomenon to them just about gets it over the bar on that. EDIT: To state the obvious the 2006 delete decision wasn't based on policy, since the relevant policies barely existed then, and should therefore be ignored for the purposes of this discussion. FOARP (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't like WP:AUD doesn't mean it can just be ignored. If you really think its a "garbage guideline", then purpose that it be changed. Until then, we will follow it.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we can decide in a AFD or RFC not to apply a particular policy, and this isn't even a policy - it's a guideline. There's a reason why WP:AUD got turned down for general application. FOARP (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really poor argument. See WP:ONLYGUIDELINE. If you actually have a legitimate reason why the guideline should not apply to this article, explain why. But telling me the guideline is garbage or that you can just arbitrarily choose to ignore it is moronic.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making personal attacks. I've stated my reasons for thinking that WP:AUD should not apply - because it is a poor guideline that delivers illogical and inconsistent results (coverage in Andorran media = notable, coverage in London city media = not notable). FOARP (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a personal attack, that's a direct criticism of your argument. If you don't like the guideline, then purpose that it be changed. We have guidelines for a reason, they are not to be ignored.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "It is a legend" and the article just needs updating to record that it's now a chain. Andrew D. (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One paragraph in a book on Princeton does very little to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is as good as a feast. Personally, I wouldn't want one of their hoagies because they seem too large and overloaded. Anyway, here's another good source The New York Times. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but the New York Times has been determined to be an enemy of the state, or similar, I believe, so Wikipedia should probably not consider that a valid source. :( --Doncram (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everyone from the New York Times to Teen Vogue [29] [30] says its notable. Click the Google news search link, plenty of other places mentioning it, lot to look through. Dream Focus 03:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Doncram, and because the suources exist to support it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 26 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. Nominator wanted to withdraw the nomination, and the consensus is that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. B. Hawkins[edit]

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

It would be incredibly difficult to evaluate the notability of this kind of article (ie, an academic-like person who isn't affiliate with a university) without some assistance. I do notice there's a lot of primary sources in this one, which was the final straw in nomination. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I want to expand this article because I created it as a stub to expand later. There are twenty book reviews for his books in peer-reviewed philosophy and theology journals. They are all on JSTOR. I haven't had a chance to summarize them all yet. Examples [31], [32], [33]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of these articles at Google Scholar. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a respectable list of publications. I have not investigated the articles, but having 3 books reviewed in a secular journal suggests notability. The article would be better for being located at his full name, with present initial title as a as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"D. J. B. Hawkins" is fine per WP:COMMONNAME: it's more natural, less cumbersome, the form used on books and the preferred form at several national databases per VIAF and WorldCat. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3: prior inclusion in at least two encyclopedias (the New Catholic Encyclopedia and the Continuum Encyclopedia of British Philosophy) is evidence of WP:GNG. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What primary sources are being referred to here? In the article at the time of nomination there were two encyclopedias and three book reviews cited, none of which are primary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses: can you explain what primary sources are on the article? I am not a fan of primary sources and rarely ever add them. I did not add any on this article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Psychologist Guy: Looking at the article again, it seems that I mistaken in thinking that were primary sources (I misread some of the inline citations). I would withdraw the nomination, but it looks like a snow keep is pretty much inevitable. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 08:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's no problem. I see from your edits you are busy on Wikipedia and you do a lot of good work here. Admittedly I only started the article as a stub more references need to be added. I will add more references later today. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:43, 24 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 05:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brightech[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Written like an advertisement. References in article seem to all be ads, paid reviews, or affiliate blogs. Colin M (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Above. I also have an observation which i will reveal to deleting admin. Lapablo (talk) 11:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely undisclosed paid advocacy/covert advertising. I've blocked the creator for that reason. MER-C 18:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Silverbridge, County Armagh. czar 05:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles in Silverbridge[edit]

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

Seems to be about one event, about which I can find little but run of the mill coverage. SITH (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Silverbridge, County Armagh. The Silverbridge incident itself is already covered in detail in Donnelly's Bar and Kay's Tavern attacks. It’s worth including a brief mention in the Silverbridge article but there’s no reason for this stub to exist in its own. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silverbridge, County Armagh. Concur with the merge of two stubs. Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Silverbridge, County Armagh. Per nom. And WP:MERGEREASON ("page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time"; 13 years seems like a "reasonable amount of time". As the content hasn't been expanded beyond a bullet or so in that time, it seems appropriate to merge that bullet elsewhere...) Guliolopez (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silverbridge, but feel free to flag me to reconsider if someone finds and adds WP:SIGCOV WP:HEYMANN to this terrorist attack.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silverbridge, County Armagh. I agree with the suggestion to merge this. ML^talk 14:09, 23 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. The consensus is that the article's references are worthy enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roohi Bano[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress; notability cannot be derived from relatives. [email protected] 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references seem to indicate that she passes WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her notability is well-supported by the article's references. Further substantial coverage is easily discoverable via a Google search. Colin M (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One proof of her notable acting career was the Pride of Performance Award by the President of Pakistan back in 1981 which is already supported by a major Pakistani newspaper reference at this article. In addition, this article already has 8 references - 3 major English-language newspapers from Pakistan and a reference from The Times of India. I am convinced this article is worth keeping. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:19, 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.