Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 February	24 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. Original speedy would have been appropriate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saladax Biomedical[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG and JBuckley93: queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of refs but notability not established. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline notability at best and clear promotionalism -- this is an advertisement for their products. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:G11. --Hiwilms (talk) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original {{db-g11}} could have stood uncontested, but someone's being extremely polite and accomodating to the coi spa who created it, giving them a chance to see this community process in action. – Athaenara ✉ 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most references are primary being BusinessWire and PRNewswire press releases. No material RS on them as a notable NCORP. Britishfinance (talk) 11:22, 2 March 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. Unanimity amongst the commentators that the subject fails WP:BIO. Just Chilling (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Allen (publisher)[edit]

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

Subject fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG) AmorinoLA (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - publishers are not automatically notable, and this lacks reliable sources required of a biography, much less of living people. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I was thinking of bringing this to AfD myself. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. It's not notable in the slightest. Cindlevet (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khokhar Confederacy[edit]

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

Made up confederacy. Two works are cited. One says that Ghori put down a rebellion by the Khokhar tribe but was killed during the rebellion (hardly a success for the tribe let alone a confederacy) the second one merely mentions a Jasrath Khokhar. Unless some reliable sources come forward asserting that this "confederacy" existed, there doesn't seem much to say about this other than a bunch of people with the same last name living in the same place. regentspark (comment) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources don't show a separate entity from Khokhar tribes. Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be kept, as I was literally looking for information on this, and it helped me to be guided in the right direction at least. UserHerName (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please provide me with a source detailing the existence of the Khokhar confederacy?213.205.194.2 (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article needs improvement on sources. Also uses bare URLs. --Hiwilms (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No such entity by the name of the “Khokhar confederacy” has every existed. I’m not even sure the article creator even knows what a “confederation” is as such an entity would consist of multiple groups and not just a single tribe like the supposed “Khokhar confederacy”. Furthermore the article creator has a history of creating hoax articles, just check his talk page. Wikipedia is not a place for hoaxes.213.205.194.2 (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some research and no sources showed up. It appears that the so-called confederacy never existed. --Hiwilms (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, the tribe exists and was involved in a military organization, but never under this title. The article about the tribe seems enough, given current sources and research. The Khokha Confederacy fails V/OR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:11, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The '80s Called[edit]

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

Claimed to be an "iconic" ad, but not significant? ViperSnake151 Talk 05:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think somebody overreacted when the article was erroneously edited with the word "iconic". The article has some potential and just needs a little cleanup. - Areaseven (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides airing during the Super Bowl (which does not make it inherently notable), there is no actual assertion of its notability/lasting impact, if any. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed among College Humor’s funniest Super Bowl ads, RadioShack stock jumped 7% (!!) on airing it, a record of some sort. It's notable: the article needs to be improved to bring this out.-- Paleorthid (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Begrudgingly Keep While I don’t see anything particularly notable about this commerical, and how it financially affected the business is utterly irrelvant to its keeping or deletion, there are reliable sources such as Forbes, CNN, and Washington Post that give enough info to be citations for verification. Trillfendi (talk) 20:47, 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 no consensus. Many various ideas present, but ultimately, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred herein. Discussion can continue on the talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wedgwood IV[edit]

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

Not notable except for being the brother of Josiah Wedgwood Erp (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my suggestion on Thomas Wedgwood III below. Mccapra (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There are details of the various Wedgwoods in works such as Chaffers. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty barebones article with little information on the individual himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:D94:36F7:5D0D:60A5 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Darwin-Wedgwood family (or even better, as proposed in another AfD to a Wedgwood family article to be split off of Darwin-Wedgwood family). Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the other AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge No individual notability, merely as member of family. Even if others think he's notable, that does not mean content about him must be on a separate article, it can be covered equally well in Darwin-Wedgwood family. Reywas92^Talk 08:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a wider Wedgwood family to cover all the relatives of Josiah of dubious notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Josiah Wedgwood has been the subject of numerous biographies. An early biographer who wrote a two volume biography and a number of additional books is Eliza Meteyard. Based on her book, I think there is a good case the Josiah's brothers, Tom and John, are both suitably encyclopedic subjects for an article. Their lives and motivations are discussed in detail, and a good deal is known about them. You can see their entries in the book's index, here[1]. I think there is a much weaker case for Josiah's father. In this and other early, public domain biographies of Josiah, all that is written about his father is based on his will, his date of death, and generalizations about potters and inhabitants from Burslem during that period. I am !voting on all three AfDs (that of John Wedgwood (1721–67), that of Thomas Wedgwood IV and that of Thomas Wedgwood III) with this comment, as I think they are similar enough. I am voting weakly because I think the best proof of the subjects being encyclopedic would come in actually improving the pages (based on Meteyard or other sources) and I do not have time to do the improving myself. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article shows no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 12:52, 2 March 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. Nomination was withdrawn and sources have been found. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cartosat-2F[edit]

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

Not notable and Unsourced RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 08:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the other satellites in this series have decent articles (see Cartosat-1 through Cartosat-2E). The article as it stands needs work to expand the content and add references, but deletion would leave a strange blank in an interesting series of articles. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a quick trawl to help others decide - here are some additional sources that could improve the article: Indian Government Website, The Hindu, International Business Times; also this website appears to have an editorial board, and is independent. I think it's notable, and there's enough to build a more substantial article around. At the very least, this could be redirected to the Cartosat-2 page rather than deleting, although I think keeping the article and filling it in further would be a preferable choice. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added prose for the citations listed by Girth Summit above and for some others I have found. This resolves the single source and primary source banners. For notability, several distinguishing features were discussed in the citations, e.g. it is 100th satellite orbited by PSLV, the third in the series launch w/i one year, has sub meter resolution camera, was originally a ground dummy/spare.--Cincotta1 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now Keep - Changes made since satisfy problems. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial display[edit]

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

Does not meet notability threshold Veggies (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable specific product. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage, WP:TOOSOON. (Plus hijacking a very generic term for a specific product) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails notability Alex-h (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Picton[edit]

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

Questionable notability Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep named chair at a major research university (one of the top universities in Canada) and also a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Obvious pass of WP:PROF on those two criteria alone. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TonyBallioni. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear pass of multiple WP:PROF criteria. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The interview is also a prove of his notability. The nominator should get a WP:Trout and read on nomination policies.--Biografer (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it seems the last sentence about the named chairship + fellowship saves this. I'll withdraw as the nominator. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Devenney[edit]

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

Just not seeing why this man, though interesting, is notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any claim of notability. Lance corporals are not generally notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't disagree on his lack of notability, note that he is a chaplain, a commissioned officer; he was a lance-corporal before he was ordained. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A smattering of sources and interviews - e.g. [2][3][4] does not GNG make. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no doub t a much loved, but wholly NN military chaplain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. I can clean this up without a mop-wielder. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate[edit]

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

per WP:TNT - the disambiguation page at Delegate (disambiguation) can be moved to this title. The material on delegates to US political party national conventions is unsourced and WP:UNDUE here. There's a bad set of dict-defs and disambiguation content mixed in. I don't see a need to rename this to United States national political convention delegate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. The actual policies are WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE which make it clear that we work with such pages to improve them, rather than deleting them and their history – over 14 years of history in this case. Also relevant is WP:BROADCONCEPT which states "if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page." If the nominator thinks they can do better than the current or previous drafts then they should prepare a version to demonstrate this. Here's a book on the subject to assist them: Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Andrew D. (talk) 22:55, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popface[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. Opting for AfD over PROD in order to allow Norwegian speakers to analyse Norwegian sources, despite machine translation not appearing to turn up much WP:SIGCOV. SITH (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are signed and have three albums released. I suggest looking for references. scope_creep^Talk 10:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost zero play on Spotify after 6 years. Found an newspaper article saying they haven't broken through yet and not made a penny. Fail WP:BAND. scope_creep^Talk 10:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced atrocity. Trillfendi (talk) 17:48, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Polsky[edit]

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

Both offline and online source searches turn up little significant coverage to confer notability per ANYBIO. Apparent failure of WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BLP1E as the only claim to notability is signing a letter. SITH (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Polsky's book "Hustlers, Beats, and Others," first published in 1967, seemed to be widely read in the San Francisco Bay area during and after the Height-Ashbury movement, almost as a companion book to Theodore Roszak's "The Making of a Counter Culture." However Polsky did not generate much news, and his influence was not as great or as lasting as Roszak's. I guess not enough is known about him to make a good bio article. Too bad. I think he was an interesting person. His obituary is at [5] - HowardMorland (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HowardMorland: - there may in fact be sources to support an article. If you are willing to put the effort into a source and expand.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Looks like a familiar thing: old article that needs an upgrade. this prof (of sociology or criminology) had a real footprint back in the day. In his case, the 60s. quite a lot of stuff turned up in a quick proquest newspaper archive search of the title of his book and his surname. I added 2 book reviews, and am out of time. But I do think it will be a keep. A willing editor without access to news archives might try searching for significant coverage in books. Also, do we have a list of pool-related deletions? Returned, ran the title of his book thorugh JSTOR search , added half a dozen academic journal book reviews. Sails past WP:AUTHOR. Page is still paltry, but I suggest that we keep it instead a redirect to his notable book. Reason is: he must have been born somewhere, gotten his PhD somewhere, been on the faculty somewhere and perhaps bred up a generation of young criminologists. He may well have written other notable stuff. So, just KEEP and hope an editor comes along to improve it. WP:HEYMANN] sourcing with book reviews. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'd be more comfortable with the case for WP:AUTHOR if there were more than one book. But the book does appear to be quite significant and I think there's enough other stories surrounding the subject (who appears to have been quite a colorful character) to save it from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An interesting thing about WP:AUTHOR#3 is that it does not specify "book". Polsky is an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR#3 because he created two works (Hustlers and the Mailer essay) that were separately significant, well-known, and discussed in multiple periodicals. The rest of the coverage he received is bonus. Bakazaka (talk) 21:28, 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. A merge can be done outside of the scope of this AfD Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Kids[edit]

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

This page has been tagged with no sources for 10 years! One of the major pillars of wikipedia is all content must be attributed to reliable sources. Per WP:BEFORE no sources appear to be readily available and in anycase even if some could be found I do not believe the article satisfies our notability criteria. As my action to redirect this page to the parent company page Carlton Television was reverted I am nominating this for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge as nominator. Although sources have been added to the article in the short space of time since the nomination was made, many are very trivial mentions backing up specific facts in the article and do not establish independent notability. Polyamorph (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to merge, see my comment below re: merging to the parent company page Carlton Television where sections already exist for this and other independently non-notable channels. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because the article featured no sources does not mean that none were available - I was able to add a decent number just by means of a simple Google search. Simply deleting the article without seeking to find sources to improve the article in the first instance, or considering alternatives such as merging, doesn't seem like the best first step in my opinion. I hope that others can continue to improve the article in addition. Bonusballs (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my nomination I looked for sources, and there were none readily available to demonstrate independent notability. As I explained in my addendum many/all the sources you added are not articles discussing the subject of the article directly and make only very trivial mentions of Carlton kids - this is not sufficient. But by all means improve the article if you can. Polyamorph (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that references have been added, the article should be kept. Also, it meets the notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added two more references which are directly related to the channel. They provide information regarding some of the programmes that were broadcast on Carlton Kids. Rillington (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You added two youtube videos! I still see no references in this entire article which satisfy our general notability criteria.Polyamorph (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added an additional reference. The article is about the closure of three of the Carlton channels, including Carlton Kids. This satisfies the general notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge I really just don't see the need for removal. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the page was unsourced for 10 years and although sources have since been found they do not represent significant coverage. It's a non-notable defunct channel, a redirect to parent company would be sufficient. Polyamorph (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that, but I would at least try looking for more sources/information to add to the page before outright deleting it. Either way, it can't go unmentioned as it is part of a trio of channels launched by Carlton Television in 1998. Maybe there is a related page we could merge it into? Also, Carlton World seems to be in the same situation.HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge into Carlton Television, where sections on these individual (but independently non-notable) channels already exist.Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good outcome, since the page is somewhat small. I support a merge now. I think Cartlon World should get similar treatment.HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources indicate channel is notable. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources haven't been updated in 10+ years, plus, it was only operational for barely a year. I was orginally on board with keeping the article but now I believe it should be merged into Carlton Television. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:33, 2 March 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. It would help if those claiming significant coverage would detail how this is met. Consensus is against inherent notability for a mayor of a town of this size. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shuki Ohana[edit]

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

Mayor a small town in Israel, searches did not turn up enough to show he meets WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the WP:GNG per abundance of WP:SIGCOV. Mayor of the City of Safed. gidonb (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources in English, but there are a whole bunch of sources in Hebrew - "שוקי אוחנה". Safed is a regionally important city with quite a bit of historic and religious significance, and this is a three time mayor.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Safed is not a small town but a major city. I think all mayors of major cities have a prima-facie case for notability. Zero^talk 10:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With a population of 35,276 Safed may be a little more than a small town, but to call it a major city is more than a bit of a stretch. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Changing vote to delete. Zero^talk 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a major city population wise (though regionally it is important historically, religiously, administratively, and has one of the few hospitals in the region) - but it is a recognized city. The more important thing is sourcing - and there's quite a bit of sources on "שוקי אוחנה" in Hebrew. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether the town/city distinction is helpful here. Is such a distinction made officially in Israel? I'm more familar with the US, where, in most states, any incorporated community is called a city, and with the UK, where the designation as a city is a rarely-bestowed honour granted to a settlement, without giving it any practical privileges. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Safed is indeed a small town (a major city would be somewhere like Ashdod or Beersheba which have populations of over 200,000; Safed is ranked around 50th in population terms in Israel). Not sure whether Zero0000 is confusing it with somewhere else. Number 5 7 12:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are right; I'm not thinking straight. Zero^talk 13:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Safed Might Be A small City But it is Growing Rapidly. New Neighborhoods are being built to expand the City Such as Mizpe Hayamim

Other neighborhood are being enlarged. Safed may be a small city But it is very important both historically and in regard to Tourism, Safed Hosts more than a million Tourists a Year.Safed Is still Growing and By deleting this Page You are Limiting It's potential to Grow, therefore the Mayor of Safed Should Have a Page In Wikipedia for Afterall A Mayor represents his City. talk David Gulyaev Hakohen (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing less than 50,000 is going to be a town that gives the mayor default notability, and we need broad sourcing, sourcing itself can be found on virtually all local politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the mayor of a municipality of 35,000 isn't enough to pass WP:NPOL. Additionally, there isn't enough sustained or significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Safed is not large enough to guarantee its mayors an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, but this isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to actually get him over the bar: it's referenced to just one Q&A interview in which he's speaking about himself, and a glancing namecheck of his existence in an overview of all the municipal election results across the entire country. This is not an "abundance" of sources for the purposes of making a mayor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, it's the bare minimum routine coverage that every mayor of anywhere could always show. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can reference him much better than this, but this is not even close to enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 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. Sandstein 07:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scratchware Manifesto[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Only forums. Fails WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search in Google Books turns up a surprising number of mentions (e.g. here in "History of Digital Games: Developments in Art, Design and Interaction"). I think there's enough out there to support notability. The article just needs some more references, and some rewriting to achieve a more neutral tone. Delete without prejudice toward it being re-created. On closer inspection, I'm finding it difficult to find multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV. There are indeed multiple results in Google Books and Google Scholar, but (beyond the 'History of Digital Games' ref I linked above) it's not clear if any are reliable and significant. e.g. "Aesthetics and Radical Politics" has some significant coverage, but appears to come from an unreliable publisher. If someone is motivated to re-create this article and willing to put in some time, I think there's a good chance they could find sources satisfying WP:GNG, but I'm giving up on putting in more time to do so. Current article is skeletal, unsourced (but for the one I added), and has major POV issues, so WP:BLOWITUP. Colin M (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and entirely unsourced. We need more than mentions to build an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I wasn’t able to find any dedicated 3rd party coverage, nor does the sole keep !vote provide sufficient evidence to meet it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you saw, but I cited a book in my keep vote which discusses the subject. Do you think it's not a reliable, independent source? If so, could you explain why? I was also able to find mentions on Google Scholar. For example, in this article: http://gamestudies.org/1601/articles/gardagrabarczyk. Based on a preliminary examination, Game Studies appears to me to be a legit journal with editorial oversight - its board of reviewers and editorial board include representation from respected universities. Colin M (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial comment supplied 1 example. 1 source isn’t enough to meet the WP:GNG. Beyond that, it was just a brief passing mention in the book - just a brief paragraph before moving on. It’s kind of iffy as to whether or not that constitutes significant coverage on the topic. Haven’t reviewed your second source yet, but two still cutting it pretty low, especially considering the quality of the first one... Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would somewhat dispute characterising the book source as a passing mention - it's invoked in the title of the section, and seems to be a core topic throughout pages 215-216. But the second source I cited above is a passing mention (though one that ascribes some significance to the Manifesto), so it's true, I haven't found 2+ totally solid references combining with WP:SIGCOV. Given the borderline notability and poor current state of the article, I'm starting to lean more towards WP:BLOWITUP. Colin M (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pavitri Manjhi[edit]

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

I don't see anything remotely okay that would help her pass any of our notability criterions. WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO or anything else..... ∯WBG^converse 13:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we can search for "Pavitri Majhi" (alternate spelling) and see if any additional sources are available. She is quoted in TOI [6], so it is plausible that there could be more coverage. Will update and vote, after I search.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately. I tried a lot but couldn't find much about her, apart from a small amount of related news. The Chingari Award would be useful, but is cannot confer notability alone. I also have other BLP/safety concerns given her work, so I think it is best not to have an article this time. If she receives news coverage again at a later date, I won't mind having an article at that time.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apology. I previously closed this discussion in error. My apologies to WBG. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:42, 28 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. Sandstein 07:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Game Network[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:WEB, specifically falling foul of WP:SIGCOV. It appears that there have been efforts to mask the lack of notability through incidental mentions of the website (WP:PLUG may thus also apply). I have made searches to find significant third-party coverage of this site's activities and found nothing. Domeditrix (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Domeditrix (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i've just reviewed your latest article Easy Allies which is also about a video games review site; do you have any conflict of interest regarding this subject or writing about it? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no conflict of interest in this matter, and I'm not sure why an AfD page for a separate page would be the appropriate place to ask this question. I came across the New Game Network Wikipedia page when looking through reviewed pages for video games websites, as a means of better drafting the article on Easy Allies. Domeditrix (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does not look to have any secondary sources from gaming websites and all it looks to be advertising the website. GamerPro64 16:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tagged the article for notability years back, and I’m not seeing that this was ever addressed. Nothing in its poorly conceived “Notability” section is anywhere close to translating to a valid “keep” stance here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:23, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

42Q[edit]

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

All sources are churnalism or affiliated. Parent company has no article. Content is basically a business directory entry (see WP:NOTDIR), and the claim of notability is by inheritance. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG, doesn't have notable independent coverage. The Forbes article about it is paid partner content, and the other websites don't seem to be very reliable or independent. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly PR pieces found online. Lapablo (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor quality sources that do not demonstrate notability. Cindlevet (talk) 19:33, 2 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams In Frame[edit]

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

All sources are basically press releases. One non-notable production listed. Guy (Help!) 14:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and almost none of the sources even mentioned the subject of this article. ~ Nahid ^Talk 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks persistent and broad coverage in reliable sources. Apropos nothing, I see the article creator has been canvassing. ——SerialNumber54129 14:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK but why this one is not deleted, Dreams on Frames. When I saw this then I thought that Dreams In Frame can be created. Cause I tried to give some references. Yes it's true I'm new, and I have some mistake. Please make me understand that why both articles are not same. Thank you. Ajairapara. 21:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so :) ——SerialNumber54129 15:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK Need to learn lot's of thing. Need to more research about create article. Thank You :)Ajairapara. 21:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 02:16, 1 March 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. WP:HAMMER Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitle Westlife Eleventh Studio album[edit]

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

The album doesn't even have a name yet and is not notable. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 13:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:FUTUREALBUM. British and Irish editors will be in no doubt that this album will be notable when it eventually comes out (I'll put money on it charting at number one in both countries), but the fact is that at this moment in time all that is known about the album is (a) it's being recorded, as confirmed on the band's website [7] and by their manager [8], (b) Ed Sheeran has written four songs for the album, including the first two singles, but it's not 100% confirmed that any of them will be on the album, (c) it won't be out until the second half of 2019 at the earliest (my bet would be October or November 2019, to take advantage of the Christmas market). No confirmed tracks, no name, no release date, and the current title of the article is meaningless... there's no concrete information here to be able to sustain an article just yet. Three of the four sources in the current version of the article don't even mention the album at all. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Richard3120. Finnegas (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PasteFS[edit]

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

The sources currently in the article (WhoIs, Blogspot, and Blogspot) appear to be about the best sourcing available. There's basically nothing. GMG ^talk 13:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. A search brings out less than three passing mentions of which are not enough. Lapablo (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NWEB. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by RHaworth. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Vahid Olyaee[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:COI since the creator is of the same name. I checked for reliable sources but couldn't find any. Fails WP:GNG. I propose Speedy Delete. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 11:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extremely promotional autobiography, that is a case of WP:PROMO. It should have been nominated for speedy deletion rather than AFD, ive nominated it now for G11, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:22, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Les Sampou[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG and has two albums on Rounder Records, satisfying another criterion of WP:NMUSIC. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [9], [10], [11], [12], plus a few other newspaper sources that I can't access in the UK. --Michig (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSICBIO#C5. The article needs references, but that does not affect her notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:13, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pandemonium (New Zealand band)[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Courtesy ping Schwede66. SITH (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Added one independent reference, the generic band name does not help. Happy to change mind if 'several' are found however many that is (WP:MUSICBIO). (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete. Non notable according to WP:NMUSIC and has been for over a decade. No independent sources to affirm. Ajf773 (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage and sources, but I assure if I add more sources to improve. Sheldybett (talk) 02:43, 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 keep. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Shaber[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. --Michig (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michig, it's interesting that the vast majority of the spate of prods didn't turn up reliable sigcov in my BEFORE searches on them, and considering this is the only one that you've actually shown the coverage you've found, I don't think I'm out of bounds in starting AfDs to request that you prove it. They were done in a short space of time but that's irrelevant because I did the proper searches en bloc which explains the dip in my activity just before the addition of the PROD tags. The scale of something doesn't make it any less or more valid. SITH (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "only one I've actually shown the coverage I've found" on, because it's the first of these AfDs I've commented on. If I had added all the sources available to all those articles when I deproded them, it would have taken me the best part of a week. I'm sure Google works the same for you as it does for me. --Michig (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Michig, good thing AfDs run for a week then SITH (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an obvious pass of WP:GNG and a clear failure of WP:BEFORE. Additionally, the nominator's tone above suggests a disrespect for the time and attention of AfD participants, which seems uncharacteristic but is nonetheless entirely unappreciated by this AfD participant. Bakazaka (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, one of about 25 afds submitted by nominator in 10mins, most appear to be a waste of time for afd editors, thank goodness there are editors like Michig who have actually spent the time looking for, and finding, references, suggest that in the future if nominator has a concern about these sort of articles they can tag them, leave messages on relevant projects (i note that they did notify the article creator of a lot of these, doesnt really work as creator hasn't been active on WP for around 7 years!). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also find significant, independent coverage in newspapers, including from New Jersey [24], Indiana [25], [26], New York [27]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 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 keep. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salamander Crossing[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [28], [29], [30], plus a Washington Post article that I could only briefly see due to a paywall. There's also a lot of coverage of Rani Arbo and Daisy Mayhem, which contains members of this band, so a merge there is a possibility. --Michig (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC) See also sources identified in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rani Arbo and Daisy Mayhem, several of which discuss this earlier band. --Michig (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as pass of WP:GNG, see e.g. "Folk Music; Salamander reaches crossroad." Gewertz, Daniel. Boston Herald, 03 Dec 1999: S23, and "Music: Salamander Crossing." Bialczak, Mark. The Post - Standard, 07 May 1999: 4, and the especially thorough profile/review "Bottleneck Dreams." Lewis, George H. Popular Music and Society Vol. 25, Iss. 3/4, (Fall 2001): 121-124. That's in addition to the later coverage of the band in the context of the members' subsequent work. Bakazaka (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources found by Michig and Bakazaka. A quick search of Newspapers.com shows that more are available. The article could certainly be edited to include the start of the band, not just its disbanding, but that is not a reason for deleting it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:48, 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 keep. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Arbo and Daisy Mayhem[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], plus several more that are blocked in my country. Also received several plays on BBC Radio [47]. --Michig (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:GNG and failure of WP:BEFORE. Thanks to Michig for putting in the work to improve the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Fun[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. --Michig (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Also [53], [54]. --Michig (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious WP:BEFORE failure, as group easily passes WP:GNG. Quick newspaper database search finds hundreds of hits, including profiles like "Mrs. Fun likes to take liberties." Mackie, John. The Vancouver Sun, 19 Jan 1989: E5, or "Fun musical collaboration had roots in grade school." Luhrssen, Dave. Milwaukee Journal, 06 July 1990: d2, or "Funky fun duo continues club hop." Point, Michael. Austin American Statesman, 02 Dec 1993: 14. Bakazaka (talk) 20:39, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lui Collins[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], and some of these also suggest further coverage exists. --Michig (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not sure that all the sources posted by Michig would be considered reliable, but I think at least #4 and #5 are - and there is coverage in newspapers also, including reviews of There's A Light [61] and [62], of concerts [63], [64], [65], etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a pass of WP:GNG. Thanks to Michig and RebeccaGreen for putting in the time to improve the encyclopedia. Bakazaka (talk) 18:45, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leni Stern[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. Nominator claims to have followed WP:BEFORE, but is it really plausible that they could do that and find none of these? --Michig (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:MUSICBIO#C1 and WP:GNG based on the sources found by Michig. No, they're not yet in the article, but they do WP:NEXIST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:GNG and a failure of WP:BEFORE. Bakazaka (talk) 18:46, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen James Society[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97]. --Michig (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of WP:GNG and obvious failure of WP:BEFORE. Quick database search finds dozens of hits, including profiles like "Ellen James Society adventuresome." Larsen, Dave. Austin American Statesman, 18 June 1992: 7, or "Four Minds Speak as One." Popkin, Helen A. S. St. Petersburg Times, 22 Feb 1991: 38, or "EJS fury an elegant mix: Quartet makes brutally honest, beautiful music." Peterson, Karla. The San Diego Union - Tribune, 11 June 1992: N&D-5. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Wheeler[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. --Michig (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clear pass of WP:GNG and obvious failure of WP:BEFORE. Plenty of coverage easily found in newspaper databases, including "A Woman of Substance: Erica Wheeler strives to blend folk, art, commercialism." Carnes, Jim. The Sacramento Bee, 19 Jan 1997: EN.7, and "Troubadour Erica Wheeler sticks to facts." Harmon, Rod. Sarasota Herald Tribune, 24 Mar 2006: 3, and "Featured Artist Erica Wheeler." Bialczak, Mark. The Post - Standard, 17 July 1998: 24. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found (again) by Michig and Bakazaka. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:50, 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 keep. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Greenway[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [107], [108], [109], [110] (Music Hound Folk Essential Album Guide). --Michig (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obvious pass of WP:GNG, including coverage like "Greg Greenway dares to get personal." Alarik, Scott. Boston Globe, 13 Oct 1995: 52, and "Music: Greg Greenway." Bialczak, Mark. The Post - Standard, 16 Oct 1998: 3, and "Greg Greenway mixes the personal and political." McLennan, Scott. Telegram & Gazette, 07 Jan 1996: 9, and "Greg Greenway turns up the heat with signature-style acoustic music." McLeod, Harriet. Richmond Times - Dispatch, 19 May 1994: D-24, and "Greg Greenway's Concrete Folk." Simmons, Carol. Dayton Daily News. 06 Aug 1999: 20, and of course his appearance on NPR's All Things Considered: "Greg Greenway discusses his musical career and performs some selections." Weekend All Things Considered, NPR. (Feb 2, 2002). Bakazaka (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the work of Michig and Bakazaka, independent, significant coverage in reliable sources clearly WP:NEXISTs. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:53, 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 keep. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allette Brooks[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [111], [112], [113], [114], and more on Google Books that I can't see enough of to see how much coverage there is. See also the press reproduced on her website here. --Michig (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clear pass of WP:GNG. In addition to the above, quick search found "Musical life going just swimmingly." Lalley, Heather. Spokesman Review, 05 Oct 2001: 3, and "Allette Brooks." Thomas, Rob. Wisconsin State Journal, 13 July 2000: 18, and a story in Stanford magazine [115]. Also, her name is actually Lisa Allette Brooks, she currently goes by her first name, and she is working on her PhD [116], which is the kind of thing that doing the minimum possible WP:BEFORE misses. Bakazaka (talk) 22:39, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona (band)[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125]. --Michig (talk) 17:03, 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. If anyone wants to merge may do so per WP:BOLD or by seeking consensus on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camille West[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Four Bitchin' Babes. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [126], [127]. --Michig (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more coverage, including MusicHound Folk: The Essential Album Guide and a review in Folk & Acoustic Music Exchange. (If it's not kept, it should be merged to Four Bitchin' Babes, as she also gets a lot of coverage as part of that group.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with RebeccaGreen. Passes GNG and should be merged if not kept. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect agree with RebeccaGreen's comment. Legion X (talk) 20:06, 1 March 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks Williams[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], also played quite a bit on BBC radio [137]. --Michig (talk) 17:13, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Noonan[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. Multiple albums on Rounder Records also satisfies another criterion of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 17:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Kane[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree, no coverage. Amending my vote to Keep as other editors have found sources.Tacyarg (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There's a reasonably substantial Allmusic bio [153], and more in Google Books that I can't see enough of to see how much coverage there is. --Michig (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pretty much every singer and their dog has an AllMusic profile, and significant, independent coverage is almost nonexistent. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant, independent coverage, and I have already added some to the article. I will try to add more. More information from those sources could also be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Michig and RebeccaGreen. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cleaned out the puffery and unsourced material. I added cites to her discography. There's enough for GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. Legion X (talk) 20:08, 1 March 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chenille Sisters[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [154], [155], [156] (see also 6 album reviews from same site), [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162] (selection in MusicHound Folk Essential Albums Guide), [163], [164]. --Michig (talk) 17:38, 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. per WP:EARLY and others. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Kallet[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [165] (plus reviews), [166], [167], [168]. --Michig (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO#C5, "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". Her first two albums (in 1981 and 1983!) were on Folk-Legacy Records. There is also plenty of coverage in newspapers - I have added a couple of references already. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she also passes GNG. I've added some sources, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:53, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Brodsky[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [169] (see also 2 album reviews from the same site), [170], [171], [172] (MusicHound Essential Album Guide), [173], [174]. See also reviews reproduced on the artist's website here. Also BBC radio plays [175]. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosy Sheridan[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [176] (plus 3 album reviews from the same site), [177], [178], [179], [180], [181]. Album(s) selected in MusicHound Folk: The Essential Album Guide. See also press reproduced on the artist's website here. --Michig (talk) 18:03, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed's Redeeming Qualities[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, and 2 albums on Rykodisc also satisfies another criterion of WP:NMUSIC. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190]. --Michig (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. On 2/23/19, I added several independent sources, including The Boston Globe, IMDB, and The Chicago Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.230.172 (talk) 20:30, 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. Withdrawing per WP:EARLY, some of these could, I admit, have been better researched, thanks to Michig for pointing this out. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debi Smith[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198], [199], [200]. Member of two notable groups, and has had multiple albums released on Shanachie Records, so satisfies at least three criteria of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Warning (web series)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable per WP:NWEB, seems to be largely WP:OR. SITH (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 10:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Never became notable on any basis. No long-term future in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mudassir Iqbal[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same rationale, below:

Cricketers who fail WP:NCRIC. While they have represented the national team, they have only played in matches in a qualifying tournament, and not a regional final or final qualifying event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. South Korea did not qualify for the next qualification stage (which has t20 International status), with South Korea not scheduled to play any t20 International matches for some time. So sadly, these guys fail WP:CRIN. Refreshing to see an associate playing mostly homegrown talent though. StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all not notable enough at this time. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. There are far too many athlete stubs which meet their sport criteria and not GNG, nevermind those which meet neither. SITH (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My usual disclaimer. Will these players (theoretically) become notable over time with regard to the new CRIN guidelines? If these players are non-notable now but will become notable later, we need to make sure they are not speedied later under CSD G4 when they do become notable. As for Strauss' WP:IDONTLIKEIT protestations, please cite an actual, workable, NPOV guideline which permits this anti-NPOV opinion... bored deletionism based on POV criteria plucked out of the air destroys any project. I am saddened by the messages on Palaciosus' user talk page, though. "I dream of horses" appears to have zero respect for this user's work, and instead of thanking him/her for the new articles, castigates him/her for not "work[ing] on the articles [they] have already written" - especially when it would seem, currently, to be hard to write more - and when, in any case, they do not pass CRIN. Perhaps the user so critical of the other's work should put in some legwork themselves instead of criticizing others for contributing... Bobo . 12:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a supplementary thought - are female IT20 cricketers now notable under the new criteria? If so, how strange that we have female cricketers who meet the refreshed CRIN guidelines (such as here) before their male counterparts do. Bobo . 12:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None demonstrate notability through multiple non-trivial sources. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 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. Sandstein 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pingsta[edit]

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

Delete 10-year-old declined PROD. WP:BEFORE fails to show the depth of independent coverage required by WP:NCORP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG / NPRODUCT. I can prove existance but nothing on notability. No long-term future on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PointUI[edit]

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

Appears to fails WP:NSOFT and WP:NPRODUCT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears non notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some coverage in gizmodo (and lifehacker - which references gizmodo).Dialectric (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete An A7 case. Decade old and no referencing, because there is nothing beyond proof of existance. Britishfinance (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SuperSync[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What connection does this have with magic? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a review at PCWorld, and several articles about updates from MacWorld (same company). Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over a decade old and only one referernce in the article, and some passing older references. Not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be going anywhere. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 06:28, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar World[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NCORP due to a lack of in-depth, independent, reliable sigcov. Opting for AfD over PROD due to possibility of sources in other languages. SITH (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Hard to even find scraps on this (did it ever happen?). 10-acre park whose only ref is a 2007 blog? Britishfinance (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, PROMO for non-notable attraction.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Litsa Spathi[edit]

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

Delete Declined PROD. WP:BEFORE shows the interview, but not the number and quality of sources required by WP:NBIO. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find adequate RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion / no objection This message is just to say that I think I am not the creator of the page, so don't expect the actual creator to weigh in. I cannot remember creating that page at all, nor do I know the subject; nor does the original edit look like my own writing style as I know it. My MediaWiki account is a merger of my own (Sietse on en.wikipedia.org) and an unused one (Sietse on nl.wikipedia.org); perhaps the edit came into my edit history via that route. That would also explain a few other edits in my early history: there are some edits there that I haven't noticed before, which are clearly vandalism, and which I definitely did not make. To return to the point: although I am listed as the creator, I think I am not; and I don't know enough about the subject to defend or oppose its precense on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sietse (talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's off topic in deletion terms, but if your account name is listed as the article creator, it means either you created the article or someone with your login credentials did. Articles don't get created automatically. In any case, it's not really relevant to the discussion, so not to worry.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question UnitedStatesian did you notice her collaborator Ruud Janssen's page? (It was AfD'd in 2004, and kept on a split consensus) Both articles have essentially the same lack of WP:RS. Both articles have been edited by Ruud Janssen Breda. --Theredproject (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed that; one article at a time. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started cleaning up Ruud Janssen to see if I could add refs. I quickly discovered it may be more of a copyvio issue. Reported to Dianaa and her critical eye in that area. Re Ruud, he might be notable; I found a few decent sources but it's iffy.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:16, 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. Sandstein 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of upcoming TVB dramas[edit]

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

Delete Declined PROD. Violates WP:NOTDIR (none of the series are independently notable), and the only significant source is the company's own website: not independent. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical WP:Listcruft. It may be less Listcruft if it was located in List of TVB dramas, given some drama made by TVB is notable and can be maintained by adding citation. Matthew hk (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it seem List of TVB dramas did existed, but in the form of sub-article and nav by Template:List of TVB dramas. However, List of upcoming TVB dramas still a Listcruft that need constant removal of in-production and those produced but not released drama from the list, and adding the new upcoming entry. Matthew hk (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to List of television programmes broadcast by TVB. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of television programmes broadcast by TVB as it is relevant to be added there and easier to edit and move series around as they are broadcast, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't list upcoming TV shows, only ones that have actually broadcast. This isn't a TV guide. Ajf773 (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. NOTDIR. Britishfinance (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Shankar (actor)[edit]

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

Not notable actor. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uday shankar is very good actor Telugu Cinema, already he has done a featured movie titled Aatagadara Siva and now he is doing a film #US2, which is working title of film. Soon they are going to release this film.

Definitely he is notable actor in tollywood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavan9542 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, dubious notability, even more dubious content. Two of the sources are from about 15 years ago about a child with remarkable memory. The others are about an actor. There's no indication that they are the same person; none of the "actor" sources, not even one that quotes a childhood acquaintance, mention his memory feats. Much of the content, including the upcoming second film, is unreferenced. Huon (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very close to an A7. Very little RS on him. Lede says it all "is new name in Telugu Cinema". Very PROMO and likely COI/UDP issue. Britishfinance (talk) 01:07, 1 March 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 Lisa Donovan. Sandstein 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Station (YouTube)[edit]

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

Was deleted in 2009. It was recreated in 2010 and not apparently with any more notability than after it was originally deleted. It has not gained any more notability in the years since. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Lisa Donovan. I don't think the previous AfD in this instance can or should be referenced in making a determination for the current AfD, given pretty much all of the content and information in the article relates to events following it's initial deletion. I don't see the merit in having this as an article out-right (especially as, for all intents and purposes, it has ceased to exist from its original purpose), but it's small enough that it could be merged as I suggest without causing bloat. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Lisa Donovan. Fails GNG, was never notable for WP. Bias to Delete, but will do a Redirect if that is the consensus. Britishfinance (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Marquez (singer)[edit]

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

I reverted my own removal of unsourced content for the purpose of this AFD but I can't find any actual evidence that she is notable. I see a few credits on allmusic, which while somewhat reliable can be user generated and I'm not sure that background vocals alone qualify for WP:NMUSIC and I can find no actual coverage of her that is RS or independent. Praxidicae (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Almost an WP:A7. "She is most famous for her appearance in the music video of singer Jason Timberlake" says it all, however, when you dig further on this, you find out that she makes a very brief appearance; she is ultimately a backing singer (not a co-singer). Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she's a run of the mill backup singer, period. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did someone notice her and create an article in the first place? Massive fail of GNG and borderline CSD-A7. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:51, 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 delete. czar 06:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Rajputs[edit]

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

The article has no content other than one name, and even that is contested (sources, all offline, appear to vary on his social group identity). What's left is the line "Sikh Rajputs are followers of Sikhism belonging to the Rajput caste" which is a mere tautology. regentspark (comment) 19:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not enough academic work detailing “Sikh Rajputs” as a distinct group. Most references just detail that some Rajputs converted to Sikhism which is not really worthy of an article. Other Rajput subgroup pages like Sindhi Rajputs, Punjabi Rajputs, Bihari Rajputs have also been deleted.31.100.154.51 (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails WP:GNG. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very little online but did find this ref in the The Indian Express, [201]. Britishfinance (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nola Adé[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the references in the article are not reliable. Although the article contains a total of 7 references, there are in fact only three sources. The Rolling Out source is an interview and isn't independent of the subject. The Nolaade.com source is the artist's website, a primary source. The Singersroom source doesn't appear to be notable, as it is a platform designed to promote artists. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Aside from the sources in the article, I found https://www.allmusic.com/artist/nola-ade-mn0003510470/credits which has no bio and https://www.allmusic.com/album/love-dance-mw0002941362 which has no review. There are passing mentions of her in Chicago news sources, but nothing that is in-depth. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm afraid notability has not been demostrated. With no reliable source, subject definately fails ALL notability criteria. A google search also returns nothing impressive. Maybe in a couple of years. Mahveotm (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was featured in Jet. But I think she may be TOOSOON, also. Just wanted to point out there IS an RS out there for her... there just needs to be more. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails GNG / MUSICBIO. Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 00:57, 1 March 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 Reddy. Sandstein 07:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reddy Subcaste[edit]

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

No source Panda619 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this article is created separately oot of Reddy as it is a list. We can first request for sources to be added before asking for deletion. There is no need for a separate article for subcastes. My suggestion would be to merge this article with Reddy with subsection subcastes and meanwhile I will try to add some sources, as I knew many of these sub-castes do exist. aggi007 (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are few of the sources-[202][203][204][205]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggi007 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge/Redirect to Reddy. ~~This article is completely unreferenced.~~ The references listed by aggi007 above are disparate lists of names from various sources that, at a minimum, would invoke WP:OR. ~~We either need to find a reference that reproduces, and can verify, this list, or we need to delete this article.~~ Britishfinance (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Britishfinance - The book - India's Communities, Volume 6 by K.S.Singh (Oxford University Press, 1988) have listed Reddy sub-groups clearly. The other references I have added will support each sub-group individually even-though they are from various sources. aggi007 (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

aggi007. Thanks for referencing. I still don't think that it merits a seperaete WP article, but I would fully support a merge/redirect to the main Reddy article. In these matters, it is always better to have one strong central article (as long as not too long) vs. dispirate broken articles. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and non notable list. Redirect to Reddy if necessary. Ajf773 (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have given valid sources about the existence of these sub-groups. I too support your view that it would be better to merge this article with Reddy if necessary. aggi007 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ although I would be OK with a merge provided there are some good sources which document this. Castes are a sensitive topic and I think we should look for papers in academic journals as possible sources of information. Ideally the source should specifically discuss the Reddy sub castes as a topic in itself, instead of discussing individual sub castes. I wasn't able to find such a source myself. If it is found, I would be happy to change my vote.--DreamLinker (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is OK as well.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. per above ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 19:17, 1 March 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. postdlf (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional space navies[edit]

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

The article has been unsourced since its conception 13 years ago. It has no obvious encyclopedic merit and merely lists crufty names of various fictional spaceship fleets, usually under some variation of "*** Space Force" or "*** Space Fleet".

While the concept of a space navy might merit a section under Space force#In science fiction, this article has nothing to add. Any space navies that merit an article will go in Category:Space navies. An example of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune to entries that actually have articles (or at least redirects, e.g. International Fleet). Delete. Every other science fiction work has one or more space navies, so listing them all is not a good idea. I'm also not seeing any significant comparable lists in the (non-fandom) wild. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough notability for Wikipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By my count only 2 of them actually have articles specifically about the space navy - Galactic Patrol and Starfleet; the rest of the blue links are redirects to more general articles e.g. New Republic (Star Wars). That's not enough articles for a list of notable things. Maybe some content could be merged to Space warfare in fiction? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW as there is already no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Enright Jerger[edit]

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

There is a lack of notability established in this article. As well, most sources are from her employer. No independent sources that establish notability. Discant X 02:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding notability: Natalie Enright Jerger is an ACM Distinguished Member which places her at the top of the Computer Science Field. In particular "The ACM Distinguished Member program recognizes up to 10 percent of ACM worldwide membership based on professional experience as well as significant achievements in the computing field."

The references to her achievements include the ACM page (for ACM distinguished member), and the CRA-W page for her Borg Early Career Award. I have added a reference to the Sloan Research page for her Sloan Research Fellowship. This is an extremely prestigious scientific funding/award, which honored only 126 scientists across all fields in 2015 when she received hers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmartonosi (talk • contribs) 04:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think ACM Distinguished Member is enough for notability by itself. It's below the level that would establish notability through WP:PROF#C3, ACM Fellow. But her citation record on Google scholar [206] is enough to convince me of a pass of #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also as Percy Edward Hart Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Toronto [207] she passes #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Would a h-index of 24 be sufficent in this highly cited field? She fails GNG by my search (primary sources and a press release) and PROF is uncertain. I agree with David around the ACM Distinguished Member situation but there is really only one paper of note in there and it was co-authored with 4 others. Also two papers of 200-odd citiations appear to be I'd guess different versions of each other. Unsure about this. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 06:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now due to a pass of C5. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As David Eppstein has noted, she meets WP:PROF#C5, as she holds a named chair appointment (which does not seem to have been added to the article yet). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C5. gidonb (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. Nothing in this article properly substantiates academic notability for an article. Trillfendi (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obvious pass of WP:PROF#C5, since she verifiably holds "a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The scope and breadth of sources supports the claim of notability as a professor / scientist as described and included in the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C5. User:shrodger —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Snow keep, this can probably be closed early based on above. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 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. SNOW. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Hoover[edit]

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

The subject of this article achieved notoriety for a few months in 2006. The refs are mostly to local news, except for a listicle piece in PC World. PROD declined in 2006 on grounds of notability but it doesn’t look notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable single event. PC78 (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Notability has come a long way since 2006. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No lasting significance for this incident. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO1E applies. No lasting impact. gidonb (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the humiliation may last a lifetime... this isn’t notable. Trillfendi (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly violates the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 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.