Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 February 25 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Mew discography. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mew singles[edit]

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

Completely unnecessary list article when Mew discography exists and suffices. No other band or musical artist has a "list of singles". This seems to have been created to display track listings and infoboxes as if to show every single as a stub article? No secondary sources apart from one referring to an album. Lazz_R 00:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into Mew discography (or vice versa?), or at least redirect. As far as I can make out, the articles for each Mew single were merged into a discography as a result of this AfD back in 2010. In 2015, this page was moved to it's current title and a new discography was created. We do not need two discographies for this band, and at least the newer version follows the typical format. PC78 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the main contributors to this (sizeable) article may not have been notified about this AfD, so courtesy pinging @Arbitrarily0, Mayast, and ВікіПЕДист: in case they wish to weigh in. Colin M (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Agree with PC78. Legion X (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am sympathetic towards the desire to include a complete detailed discography, but how to do this is something that this project has never really got to grips with. The number of different versions of many of the singles, and different B-sides/additional tracks makes this one difficult to achieve without a separate article, but the detail is excessive here. The infoboxes are pretty redundant, and make the article look cluttered, but I don't think the detail here would fit well within the band's discography article. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 3 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. Michig (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Malkova[edit]

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

Fails GNG, and technical SNG passes are not sufficient to ignore that this is an inadequately sourced BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 21:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Solid Keep. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). QED. Britishfinance (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As other arguments - meets WP:PORNBIO which was created for situations such as this. Curved Space (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - 2016 XBIZ Award Best Actress meets WP:PORNBIO.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meeting PORNBIO based on an industry award is not enough. She fails WP:ENT and sourcing is poor. Many biographical details about porn actors are faked so we need to be careful here. Legacypac (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:50, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Develop Africa charity[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP - I can't find any independent coverage that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The sourcing on the page at present is mostly directly related to the charity; the independent sources give either very little or no coverage. I also note that a similarly named page (Develop Africa), created by the same editor, was speedily deleted a few days ago. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As discussed here, the Amazon, Google books etc sources do not demonstrate notability - they simply show that the head of this charity has self-published some books, none of which have been reviewed or discussed in reliable sources. At AfD, we discuss each article on its individual merits, not in comparison with other (potentially problematic) articles about other subjects. GirthSummit (blether) 16:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are now 16 references and from the YouTube channel you can see, that this organization is very useful and should be on Wikipedia DevAfrica (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that this account's username is very similar to the name of the organisation that is the subject of this article, and that this comment is their first contribution to Wikipedia. GirthSummit (blether) 16:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Girth Summit is focused to make us think that 16 sources do not contain 2 independent, but he did not notice that previously listed charities has no independent source: Dr. Harry F. Moniba Foundation, Feed My Lambs, ChildVoice International, ICCF Holland. Why is he so strict about Develop Africa charity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.135.34.130 (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 46.135.34.130, I am assuming that you are the same person previously editing as DevAfrica now that your account has been blocked. Let me just be clear that the only reason I raised this AfD discussion because I reviewed this article, and judged it not to meet our guidelines on notability. I have not reviewed the other articles that you are bringing up - it's very possible that they also have problems, which may be addressed in time, but shortfalls in other articles is not a reason to ignore shortfalls in this article. Please keep this discussion focussed on this article, without pointing to flaws in others.
There are indeed sixteen sources currently used in this article - there are references to the charity's own website, there are references to the website of The Pencil Project, which the charity is directly involved with, there is a YouTube video on the charity's YouTube account, there are Amazon and Google books links to books self-published by the charity's director, there is a link to 'The Dream Home' project, which the charity is also directly involved with, there are crowd sourcing pages asking people to donate money to the charity, there is a press release by a law firm that donated some misprinted pens to the charity... There appear to be two actually independent sources - both of them giving one-line passing mentions to the charity. Details for sources required to write about an organisation can be found at WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm sorry, but none of this comes anywhere close to that. GirthSummit (blether) 20:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is recently a stub, but charity activities are promising and new references will be available - this apply also to other charities without references 46.135.47.194 (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to IP editors It's a bit strange that two similar IP addresses, (both registered to Vodafone Czech Republic) should show up at AfD independently and, never having edited any other article, vote on this. Strange also perhaps that 46.135.47.194's first edit was to put a charity stub tag on the article - that's not something that most new users know how to do.
Guy/s, this isn't a vote. It doesn't matter how many accounts/IPs come along saying that the charity's activities are useful/promising/importantant etc. To influence the decision you need to show that the charity currently meets the notability requirements, linked to above. If you can show significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary sources, to a standard that meets WP:CORPDEPTH, then I will happily withdraw this nomination. I have looked pretty hard however, and can find nothing that meets the required standards. GirthSummit (blether) 07:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. There does not appear to be significant coverage from reliable independent sources (among the existing references or elsewhere). The remaining arguments to keep seem like anti-patterns such as WP:WHATABOUTX, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Colin M (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:31, 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. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 metro station[edit]

Phase 2 metro station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia does not require an article for a tiny little metro station. I don't see any way this article can be expanded. User:cool12y —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 24 February 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First of all, it's not tiny. It's a major metro station on a major line. Such stations are considered inherently notable. It's impossible for a public works station of this magnitude to not have extensive government reports or proposals, studies, budgets, environmental assessments, etc.. The article can easily be expanded just like any other metro station, like Janakpuri West metro station for example. Content such as the history, layout, relation to the community it serves and other transit connections can be added.Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has generally been accepted that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Agree with other users above. It only needs more work. --Hiwilms (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep,I agree, It's a major metro station and has WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep inherently notable despite the undescriptive article. Pinguinn 🐧 05:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article needs more work. MGhazi (talk) 09:46, 3 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Girardin[edit]

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

actor who has only ever held minor character appearances, no coverage and almost all results are for people who are not him. Praxidicae (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because those articles exist on WP, doesn't mean that they should but merely having been in them doesn't satisfy WP:IRS in my opinion and I would expect if he had been a top billed cast member in multiple notable films, there would be an array of in depth coverage of him, but there's not. Praxidicae (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, WP:NACTOR says "significant roles in multiple notable films". I interpret "significant" to be a lower standard than "top billed". In my mind, a significant role should have more than a couple lines of dialog, and the character should probably have a name (rather than, say, "Frightened inmate #2"), but it doesn't necessarily mean they're playing a main character, or that the actor's name would be on the poster, or that they'd do press for the movie. (This is just my interpretation. Unfortunately, WP:NACTOR doesn't have any kind of footnote defining "significant", and I couldn't find much discussion of the term in that page's talk page archives.) Colin M (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point still remains that he lacks coverage which is the ultimate determination of notability. Praxidicae (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. To address Colin M's comments, what precisely is "above-the-fold billing?" on IMDB (as a 20+ year contributor to IMDB, I'd love to know!), what evidence is there that the subject meets the same, and what notability guideline does such explicitly satisfy? The only one of those three movies in which the subject had a noteworthy role was Hollywood Man, and whether one can call a film that doesn't even make Box Office Mojo's site a "notable film" is questionable at best. I want a great deal more to handwave away the GNG than such a shaky interpretation of NACTOR. Ravenswing 01:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to cases where his name appears in the abbreviated cast listing on the movie's main page (which IMDB labels "Cast overview, first billed only"), rather than having to click "See full cast". See this page for an example. The notability guideline that I'm claiming is satisfied is WP:NACTOR, as I wrote in the beginning of my vote. Colin M (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm ... "first billed only" isn't any indication of relative importance; it's simply the order in which the credits roll, which as we all know is often in order of appearance, for instance. You're genuinely stipulating that being in the first (undefined) credited X of the cast list, absent any genuine knowledge of the movie so presented and the performer's role therein, explicitly (I didn't choose the word as a throwaway) satisfies NACTOR? Ravenswing 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeesh, sorry, I didn't know the IMDB cast section followed the ordering in the end credits. Thanks for the information, but also WP:CHILLOUT. Colin M (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ran him though a Proquest news archive search, and can't find anything no sources, no notability. (There was a notable Detroit journalist who became chief of police by this name, who ought to have an article.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:04, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark White (model)[edit]

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

Notability concerns - no substantive coverage in reliable sources. 10ztalk is a regurgitator of a Medium post - 10ztalk possibly should be blacklisted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to pass notability. I wasn't able to find the claimed features in "internationally known media publications, including The New York Post, The Daily Mail and The Wall Street Journal among others" mentioned in the article. (If anyone does manage to find them, I'll reconsider my opinion.) Colin M (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Non-notable with little coverage in reliable sources. Hiàn (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:39, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashely Calejo (model)[edit]

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

Notability concerns - no substantive coverage in reliable sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. No coverage in reliable sources. Promotional tone. Colin M (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:40, 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. Normally, WP:ATD would urge me to go along with the redirect suggestion, but user:power~enwiki makes a good argument against redirecting. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Cappella Metal[edit]

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

A supposed musical genre - the only source is describing a single band as an "a cappella metal band". power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Van Canto who seem to be the only band to use this genre designation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Van Canto, otherwise delete. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while the Van Canto appears to meet notability guidelines, I wouldn't call the band well-known. Most of the references in that article are in German and to their own social media. I wouldn't think the band is the primary topic for this phrase - and doubt they are truly the only band of this type. Maybe college students would do this type of thing? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Legion X (talk) 19:59, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Bell (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Coverage is very brief or in local newspapers. The "South East Entrepreneur of the Year" award is insufficient to confer notability. SmartSE (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Existing sources are of low quality. Can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Colin M (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the simple fact that this article uses a The Sun which I’m pretty sure is a on the global blackist. Trillfendi (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:47, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Jane Laughlin[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:NACTOR. There simply isn't reliable coverage on her. Kbabej (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Britishfinance:. Yes, I was the one who originally created the article when I was a new WP user. As other editors have edited and contributed to the page, I didn't think it was eligible for WP:G7. I could be wrong on that count, though. As it stands, I do not believe the subjects meets WP:NACTOR or GNG. --Kbabej (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Small minor roles. Britishfinance (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single role of her's is a significant one (recurring ones or in not notable movies), making Laura fail WP:NACTOR, and on WP:GNG front it is equally as bad, with no significant coverage present in searches nor in the article (passing mentions or listings). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:22, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anisa Romero[edit]

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

non-notable musician/artist, can't find any in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. Seems like this would even qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A7 (no indication of importance). Colin M (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should have been speedy deleted. All I can find online is that she is "Assistant Director of Facilities and Administration at NYU Tisch School of the Arts." Non-notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No statement of notability and a clear attempt at creating a directory-style entry of the type better left at LinkedIn and similar services. Wikipedia is not a directory. Meanwhile, her works have received no reliable media coverage and has only been noticed in a few blogs and routine listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, no notability , no real coverage. 12:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Alex-h (talk)
  • Redirect to Sky Cries Mary. Being a lead singer of a notable band is a clear and solid statement of notability. The grossly bad form act of removing the prime claim of notability just before nomination is almost grounds to call for a procedural speedy keep, especially given that none of the above who are calling for delete show any sign of having done a good Before, look at the history of the article. All appear to be purely judging the subject on the current state of the article instead of the notability of the subject. Do not delete and severely trout the nominator. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme: just to be a little pedantic the removed text you're referring to reads During the 1990s, she sang with Roderick Wolgamott of Sky Cries Mary and lead vocals for Hana. It did not say she was actually a member of Sky Cries Mary. That removed sentence, even if verifiable, would not be grounds for notability. (That said, after some more searching, I can believe she is/was a member based on sources like [13])
Also, do you have a source for the claim that "Being a lead singer of a notable band is a clear and solid statement of notability". My reading of WP:BAND suggests this is not true, based on the quote Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. and on this portion of notability criterion 6: or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles (which suggests to me that being a member of one notable ensemble does not establish a musician as being independently notable). Colin M (talk) 16:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Osita Onumonu[edit]

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

Though they are a number of non-significant awards it currently fails WP:ENT. Not enough sources to properly display her notability WP:TOOSOON. Lapablo (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing impressive, essentially linkbomb. Awards are mediocre and I can't find any reason to keep. Another promotional avenue for not so notable XYZ's. Contesting in an pageant does NOT make you notable. Mahveotm (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some of primary sources notable awards she won. AFWN Fashion designer of the year Award 2016 https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/07/09/gala-nights-creme-de-la-creme/?amp

Green october event (fashion designer of the year)-2018 http://lamodespot.com/green-october-event-2018-the-nominations-for-the-fashion-awards-categories/

https://fabwoman.ng/female-winners-at-lamode-magazines-2018-green-october-event-fabwoman/

Fastest Growing Brand Award 2016 https://www.bellanaija.com/2016/10/first-photos-juliet-ibrahim-eni-balogun-trish-o-couture-are-top-winners-at-the-5th-glam-essence-style-awards-and-runway-show-2016/ Princek2019 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Mahveotm. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. The subject did get primary coverage here and a secondary coverage here, but these two are not enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The latter article stated that the subject's brand is a top fashion brand in Nigeria. However, a Google search of the brand doesn't support the article's claims.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please kindly look closely Mahveotm Versace1608 on the underlisted award especially , it's a well recognize award in africa especially in fashion industry in Nigeria and they are both reliable primary source

Fashion designer of the year Award 2016 https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2016/07/09/gala-nights-creme-de-la-creme/?amp https://m.guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/afwn2016-the-thrills-frills-and-highlights Princek2019 (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, does not meet WP:GNG appears to be a promotional/vanity article. WCMemail 11:50, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel Zuberi[edit]

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

Ineligible for G7 as someone else has blanked the page, although it looks like an associated account. Either way, per GSS' redirecting rationale, Zuberi fails WP:GNG but clearly others contest this so I am AfDing to gain consensus. SITH (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence Zuberi played a significant role in shows listed in the article and fails WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabeel Zubieri - it looks like a duplicate AfD on a duplicate article.PRehse (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! There were 2 articles created on wikipedia. The only problem was the spelling mistake. His name is Nabeel Zuberi, not Nabeel Zubieri. Therefore the articles could have looked the same. The other page is deleted, but this page has the correct spelling and correct biography. Please have a look at those references listed in it as I have added a lot of references and news links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebrity717real (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt -- Per all above. Fails NACTOR and/or GNG. Too soon to be notable enough; anyways why G4 was not applied? ∯WBGconverse 07:03, 4 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 Clathrina. RL0919 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guancha[edit]

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

I would like to propose a deletion of this genera. It does not exist, and which species do exist have new names and I have already piped all the redirects to the new species so there is no purpose to keeping the old name (anyone searching for the outdated species in an old source already gets a redirect to the correct species name). This page is an orphan (no pages link to this) and thus serves no function. An alternative to deletion could be to just redirect this page to the family page Clathrinidae. Mattximus (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The page very much serves a function: to explain to the reader, who might look up a genus mentioned in a book or elsewhere, that this is no longer recognised as a genus. An encyclopedia exists to provide information to its readers, not to hide it from them because taxonomy has changed. This information can presented on a separate page or in the article on Clathrinidae, but it shouldn't be deleted, so a simple redirection without putting an explanation in the target article would be pointless. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But it is incorrect, all those species names are no longer valid. Would a compromise be a redirection but placing an explanation in the Clathrinidae article about former name in case anyone looks up the genus directly (this is not a problem for the species listed, since I have already redirected with appropriate attribution of old names)? Keeping it as is makes it look like they are indeed valid. At the very least they have to go, even if the article itself is not deleted. I will do this now. Mattximus (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is incorrect? The article says that this was formerly recognised as a genus including the listed species but is no longer recognised. That looks perfectly correct to me, and just the sort of encyclopedic information that a reader would expect, remembering that encyclopedias cover history as well as current knowledge. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead sentence is correct, in that it informs the reader that this is not a real thing. However the list of species is actually invalid and should not be there, nor the taxobox. No other page on wikipedia would list invalid species. I suppose that can be called alternative #2, just keep it as a one sentence article. Is that preferable to my first compromise? Mattximus (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the list of species is not invalid, because they were previously thought to be part of this genus, and, if the article doesn't already make that clear, it would only take a few words to fix that. The taxobox can certainly be done away with. Once again. encyclopedias cover history as well as current knowledge. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, this discussion seems to be malformed because it doesn't contain the usual header for an AfD discussion. Could the nominator please fix this to conform to the procedure at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Clathrinidae or Keep. To merge: add a sentence to Clathrinidae along the lines of "Another genus, Guancha was previously recognized until 2009, when its members were reclassified into Clathrina, Ernstia and Nicola". Alternatively, I would also support keeping a Guancha article, if an editor wants to add a listing of species formerly contained in the Genus, along with their new names. Colin M (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge would be perfectly fine, but it should include the encyclopedic information about which species were previously defined to be part of this superceded genus. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if we're going to do that (which I agree is not a bad idea - and is backed up by some precedent, i.e. in the examples in the top-level comment below), then I would prefer having that information on a dedicated Guancha article rather than putting it in Clathrinidae. I've changed my vote to "Merge or Keep". Colin M (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are some examples of articles for defunct/no-longer-recognized taxa: Michelia, Ergaticus, Lagynias, Oncocnemis. These may be useful case studies here. Colin M (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clathrina (1st choice) or keep as stand alone article (2nd choice). There is no reason to delete this page/title. When a Wikipedia page exists for a no longer recognized genus, it's most frequently a redirect to the genus with which it is now considered synonymous. Much less frequently, we have articles on obsolete/historically recognized genera (a few of which are listed by Colin M above). We never have obsolete genera redirecting to a family page with the formerly included species discussed there. Under the rules of nomenclature, Guancha is a straightforward synonym of Clathrina, so I'm inclined to turn this into a redirect. Former Guancha species are now included in 3 genera, so there may be a case for keeping a standalone article to explain what species went where (but on the other hand, of the 16 species that have ever been recognized in Guancha, 14 are now placed in Clathrina, so I'm not really convinced we need a separate article to deal with the other two) Plantdrew (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I will change my opinion from delete, to *Redirect to Clathrina. Mattximus (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect C'mon. This would be a no-brainer redirect to Clathrina if not for the single Ernstia entry, and that is easily dealt with by an explanatory sentence at Clathrina. I mean, it's no disaster if this just sticks around as an unnecessarily expansive redirect (so to speak), but needed it is not; might as well be tidy. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I feel we have too many articles on historic taxa already, and this one is just obsolete and not so much historic. Adding a note about former taxonomic placements in the target article would be nice to do though. --Nessie (talk) 14:54, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fivetran[edit]

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

Typical run of the mill corp. Startup company with series of funding press releases. At this point nothing significant or outstanding about the company and only serves to promote the corp. Lapablo (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:16, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eron Westwood[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS [14]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG and SPORT. If anything TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 06:43, 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) 15:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of art galleries in Colombia[edit]

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

This seems like a purely promotional article of private art galleries; no attempt to establish WP:GNG for any gallery (in fact there is almost no referencing at all). Original editor seems long gone. Another editor has been trying to create individual WP articles on these galleries, one of which Beatriz Esguerra Art was an A7 CSD case (and very promotional). We could remove all the unreferenced promotional material which would leave the article almost blank. Dediced to consult with AfD instead. Britishfinance (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTPROMO. Only one linked entry, the rest are probably non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, it fails WP:NOTDIR and appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE - and cannot even serve that function if it consists mostly of redlinks and promotional summaries. ComplexRational (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, just wondering why this list doesn't include the notable galleries/art museums at Museums and galleries subsection of Bogotá? this may be a problem with the title, could it be changed to "List of galleries and museums in Columbia"?agree with above that the list appears WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PROMOTION (could also be a bit of WP:COI as creator says they are a professional columbian artist), as Bogotá article does state that the city has 58 museums and over 70 art galleries, although this is uncited. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple: Yes, that struck me as weird too, why the list doesn't include the country's major art galleries, just the small private ones. And by the way, it's Colombia, not Columbia... Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to WP:GNG, this can be a suitable way of dealing with semi-notable subjects that do not merit a full article. It is in such cases a matter of judgment which ones should be included. Th links to their websites should be removed, and at least one good third-party reference for each added. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: I'm inclined to agree with you... just picking a few names out of the list at random, I could easily find at least one in-depth article from reliable sources on each of them. I'll see if I can add these sources in the next couple of days. Richard3120 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep: I've added a reference from a reliable source to all but one of the galleries – I'm not a fan of lists in general, but this one can be sourced fairly easily, and if the major museums were added there would be a stronger case for keeping the article. Richard3120 (talk) 01:09, 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) 00:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nice work Richard3120. The question is what is this article becoming? It is still a list of private art galleries, with referencing to now prove existance, but not notability. I think it would need a decisive "nudge" to give it stability/a future – otherwise, what would stop it from the same fate as the recently deleted "List of Wineries in Alabama"? Britishfinance (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: it's a valid point. I'm not very keen on lists in general on Wikipedia, I think 90% of them are badly sourced and/or full of original research – at least with this one it is possible to locate independent sources for most of the galleries. But it probably does need a clearer focus, and the addition of the major art galleries. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Vézina. Any useful content may be merged as desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vezina[edit]

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

An online source search brings up seven unreliable sources and two sources (1, 2) whose reliability I am unfamiliar with. However, they don't seem to cover Vezina as the primary topic of writing. An offline source search reveals only two passing mentions (p226, p66). Therefore, I propose this article be deleted as it fails biographical notability and general notability guidelines. SITH (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a google books search for Vezina Tapae brings up a whole bunch of hits (seems he was second in command in the battle per some of these, and pretended to be dead) - however most of the hits are in snippet view (and many aren't in English) and I'm unable to see how much depth there is there. in this book which seems like a RS, he appears in 3 pages per the index (however the book itself isn't available in those page ranges).Icewhiz (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Page 176 from Grumeza, Ion. Dacia: Land of Transylvania, Cornerstone of Ancient Eastern Europe. University Press of America, 2009. which you referenced, is available to me, here[15]. That page suggests Vezina can be seen on Trajan's column, but isn't too clear on this point (and even Decebalus' visage on the column isn't certain, I think). Some sources online claim that Vezina is called a priest on the (likely forged) Sinaia lead plates. To me, any fact which is sourced to a source that used these plates should be flagged in the text as being based in a likely forgery. His being second in command to Decebalus is attested in Cassius Dio here[16], which is the reference used on page 70 here[17]. If it were a clear that he is depicted on the column, then these three primary sources (one forged) and their discussions in RS (where found) could be cobbled together into an encyclopedia article, I think. Without something more, though, I wouldn't support keep in this case. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect somewhere -- The nom's first potentially reliable source seems to support the article text: "Vezina was the Dacian high priest during the reign of Decebalus, the most important man in the Kingdom after Decebalus. He took part in the Battle of Tapae in 88 AD". The second explains the name as meaning "leader", which might mean that the word refers to an office or title. I suspect that we only know about pre-Roman Dacia from Greek and Latin sources, so that it may well be that we only have a passing reference in the odd ancient author to him. This means that (as with many people in the ancient world) we know almost nothing of him, except his bare existence. This is not a basis for a worthwhile article. It would have to be tagged as a stub, but doing so would invite WP:OR. Battle of Tapae (88) might be an appropriate target. Most of the articles on the Dacians wars seem very brief and would merit expansion, if classical sources exist to make this possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Second Battle of Tapae. This title should redirect to Vézina. –Srnec (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metacorder[edit]

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

An online source search brings up no independent, reliable, significant coverage and an offline one brings up an unattributed Wikipedia fork. Therefore, I propose deletion as a WP:GNG failure. SITH (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the information in the article, this is a device in a non-notable short story by a non-notable writer? Unless something fairly central is missing, this is not encyclopedic material. /Julle (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Wow, this article flew under the radar for a long time, didn't it? Colin M (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Party of Canada[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have received the requisite depth of coverage for organisations. There are quite a few passing mentions which don't constitute significant coverage turned up by a source search such as this, and a few passing mentions in books but that's it. It looks like an WP:NCORP failure. SITH (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 14:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. ―MJL -Talk-☖ 14:50, 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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Renowitzky[edit]

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

Personal promo piece that has survived here since 2010 without any reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in addition it seems from the edit history that a number of 2016 edits were made by the subject of the article or someone closely related to his organisation. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. From what I see in my BEFORE, he doesn't pass SIGCOV. There are a few items covering his activism / speaking - but I don't see how this raises up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete, I always regret deleting a Bio about someone doing good works. However, coverage I can find is limited to a few mentions and an article or two about him in the local paper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I must agree with the previous voters. He has a compelling life story and is doing great work, but there is not enough significant and reliable media coverage of him or his charity. And if the second of those was present, the article should be about the charity as an organization. Unfortunately, the article reads like a plea for donations, and while this charity certainly deserves donations, an encyclopedia is the wrong place to ask. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, simply not notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:52, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi Prakash[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NACTOR or WP:NBIO. The article states that "He rose to fame with the 2013 blockbuster Malayalam film Memories but his name does not appear on the lengthy cast list, nor on that of his other film Persiakaran. The article seems to have been written by a single purpose creator, probably someone with a CoI. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable actor. Seems to have done a role of note only in his last Malayalam movie, which incidentally is probably not good enough to merit an article. Jupitus Smart 15:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches did not turn up enough to show he meets WP:GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 TT me 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Heidelberg University. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg University Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences[edit]

Heidelberg University Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in its own right Bigwig7 (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 11:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SS49: Relisting really not necessary here. It's already been relisted twice and there are no conflicting opinions -- only standard operating procedure. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. As above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 06:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palghat Ramprasad[edit]

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

This was recently moved from Draft:Palghat_Ramprasad after failing AFC submission twice. I'm not sure whether or not this qualifies for deletion, so I'm looking for XfD discussion. Does this individual meet notability guidelines? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. After complying with biography of living persons guidelines, it was submitted with a much abdridged NPOV version. But I published the new NPOV version with proper citations and any references that might have sounded like advertising were all removed. Please see edit history in original version. I was afraid this was waiting approval for too long and hence created new version incorporating the recommendations. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arasksk (talk • contribs) 03:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: could be notable, send back to the draftspace for more work. SITH (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:00, 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. bd2412 T 23:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asian-American Enterprise Fund[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:GROUP. I have no connection to the subject, I stumbled across it when a newly created account was adding a non-notable to the list of people who were first on the board of this now defunct group. I removed that, and then the listing of all the other board members who were non-notable. I tried finding some sources regarding the group but came up short, realizing the entire group was non-notable and unlikely to gain any as it no longer exists. Prod was contested. Ifnord (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please see WP:PROD. It is the informal process to delete an article, the tag you removed and hence the formal process now. Ifnord (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't find anything on en-news RS. The two non-en news sources gave it passing reference in the CVs of individuals (e.g. here). It does appear in a book search, but again only in passing reference or in books where it is listed as per a directory of sources of investors. These are all supporting its existance. However, I could find nothing supporting its notability; not a single material RS discussing the fund or its impact that would meet WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Stevenmitchell: RS is from WP:RS, and "en-news" are RS news sources where English is the language. I can see that there are some foreign sources oon this but the ones I checked were just name-checking the Fund and not discussing/profiling it (e.g. goes to prove existance but not notability). However, this fund may appear with different names in Russian/Asian media and thus a good RS that does profile the fund could exist in a major paper in these areas? Britishfinance (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 09:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not able to find any significant coverage of the fund itself. In my searches I found passing mentions like [18], which is certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 3 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.
Why was this page deleted if 2 people nominated it for deletion, and one (myself) argued against it? How is that possibly consensus in any possible scenario? This process initiated by people that obviously are educated in their domains but not in history or politics or any aspect of historical reflection, has its parallels adn is reminiscent of the top-down structures of communist political decisions, and gangsterism.Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article should certainly not, according to Wikipedia's written rules, have been deleted for notability issues, because if you read the notability topic in Wikipedia, it is based on the subject-matter, not the specificity of the article in question. I could extract quotes from the Wikipedia article on Notability, as I thought I still had time to do so, however, this article is gone. If it was so difficult to find information on this specific topic, why is there a page on the Whitehouse website currently, that specifically refers to the name of this specific fund? Why is there a vacuum on Wikipedia of topics on this subject matter? This is just another example on Wikipedia, who either are not sophisticated enough to do an effective web search or are too lazy to do one, because it may take too much time. Please explain what consensus means on Wikipedia. Does it really mean majority-rule, or does it actually mean consensus?... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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 Sooner or Later (The Grass Roots song)#GF4 version. Already redirected to Sooner_or_Later_(The_Grass_Roots_song)#GF4_version as per consensus. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sooner or Later (GF4 song)[edit]

Sooner or Later (GF4 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This song is a cover version of Sooner_or_Later_(The_Grass_Roots_song) so does not need its own article. All content from this page has been added to the original, in line with how cover versions are normally treated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Too Orangey For Crows (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Converted to {{afd2}} and signed --DannyS712 (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect Already merged so just redirect. Should have perhaps simply been BOLDly redirected after the merge. Aoziwe (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I agree with the previous two comments. This is an improper use of the AfD process. The article cannot be deleted for attribution reasons because content has been moved from this article to the proposed redirect target, Sooner or Later (The Grass Roots song). It would have been better to simply edit the article to make it a redirect. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Michig et al.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page edited to make it a redirect as suggested. Therefore the page is considered to be kept? Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 13:23, 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. consensus is that the season fails NSEASONS and no sources have been provided to support the assertion that wider GNG is met. Fenix down (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1907–08 Rochdale A.F.C. season[edit]

1907–08 Rochdale A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSEASONS; Rochdale spent this season in the Manchester League, which was nowhere near even being a top semi-professional league at the time. Prod removed by article's creator. Number 57 12:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:29, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Barry (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No sources for article, cannot find any sources for Jack Barry, The Jack Barry Show, or Jacob Belser. History states that article may be completely original research. Rogermx (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did searches on Google and Google Books. I found nothing. Bearian (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see how WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable sources) or WP:V (support by reliable sources for verifiability) are met. As it stands, this is WP:OR and all the coverage I can find is about the game show host Jack Barry (game show host) instead. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 3 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QXP: The Quran As It Explains Itself[edit]

QXP: The Quran As It Explains Itself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable translation of the Quran. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page as another non-notable book about the Quran.
Exposition Of The Holy Qur'an (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. I had originally PRODded the QXP article as "Non-notable book. The Quran is, but no support that this specific translation is.", which is still my position. DMacks (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: both seem to fail WP:NBOOK. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:22, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Urman[edit]

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

Not seeing how this person can pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Run of the mill medical person. Edwardx (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination; the article reads more like a promotional biography entry rather than a neutral Wikipedia one.TH1980 (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 11:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet either WP:BASIC or WP:NPROF. Promotional 'cruft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPROF, I would say the award they won is not independently notable and does seem to be a well covered or prestigious award (despite that the article about the award claims as such). Couldn't find any reliable secondary source that actually linked him to the award. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:15, 4 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit Mulugeta[edit]

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

This person is relatively unknown and a non-public figure, even if they are notable enough for an article. The significance of his publications is not as profound as previously thought upon further inspection and through laterally checking secondary source material. Previous claims to keeping this page several months ago should be reverted; reasons for keeping this article are exaggerated by the author (me). Thomasdw22 (talk) 7:00, 10 Feburary 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you want to apply WP:NPOLITICIAN to some kind of research scientist? Surely the relevant criteria here is WP:NACADEMIC.CoronaryKea (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry about that, I thought he was a polictan when it first came up on my mind until I realised it now he is an notabable academic. Sorry about that. Sheldybett (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 1 only. It's annoying the claims about the impact of his work are not properly cited but a couple of his articles have over a hundred citations, which speaks to the broader impact. The argument in the previous discussion about him having worked at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is irrelevant, though: he does not meet criterion 3. CoronaryKea (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment All of the article's references are by him and not about him. My own google search didn't find coverage that meets the GNG. However, he does have several highly cited papers. I don't know if an h-index of 10 is good or bad for agronomy.Sandals1 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very much on the weak side. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment/Delete I have done multiple checks on the impact of the research, which do not span past his field, and do not support other fields. The research done by Dr Mulugeta is in it of itself wonderful, however, it is not significant, despite my claims. It has the same effect as someone writing their professors wikipedia article. I feel that it is not significant enough for an article, even if there are cited papers. Thomasdw22 (talk) 1:44, 25 Feburary 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OK, so I guess he never played pro soccer, or happens to be an obscure species of moth, but this is too much. Tony May (talk) 15:25, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GSI Outdoors[edit]

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

PROD replaced with corporate spam. Original rationale was: Insufficient depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom for failing WP:CORPDEPTH. I found a number of good references but they all mentioned the subject in passing only, usually as one of a list of recalled products (water bottles with high levels of lead) or in a list of potential camping supplies to take whilst outdoors. Ifnord (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep it, but it certainly needs more factual information. Their products are on Amazon, which is what caused me to go looking for more info, so they aren't totally trivial. And checking the reviews, they seem to be towards the top of the heap in cheap **** enamelware, so a little background info is a useful thing. And at least they are honest, they buy from China, not like Graniteware which goes on and on about their great American Heritage but buys the product in Mexico.
btw, not germane to GSI but wikipedia ? Take your stupid popups and SHOVE IT ! "Duh, did you want to edit now ?"
No, I was having an epileptic fit and mistakenly clicked the "edit" tab. Imbeciles. 172.58.41.3 (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to respond to this so I'm just going to indent it. SITH (talk) 13:40, 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. There is clear consensus to delete this article at this time. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-to-Peer Electronic Accounting System[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism per WP:NEO and WP:No original research. I can find little to no substantial mention of the subject online, apart from research papers apparently written by the article creator. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic is the article creator’s stated area of research. Outside of that it doesn’t seem to get a mention, so not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet -related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software -related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I prodded it on similar grounds, and the prod was contested without comment by an anonymous editor, who also added some references to the previously unsourced article. Two mention peer-to-peer transactions but not this subject, one is a subscriber-only JSTOR link, and two are research papers by the article creator. I can find nothing about it online in RS outside of research proposals by a single researcher. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Don't see which part cannot be covered on main articles of the subject. Shashank5988 (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer). There is clear consensus in favour of this redirecting to Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer). TheSandDoctor Talk 07:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian & Jenn Johnson[edit]

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

For inexplicable reasons, out of 4 sources here, three of them are basically public birth certificates. Nothing in this article shows notability and there are no reliable sources out there for notability for this group. “But they charted!” is not a guarantee of that. Trillfendi (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer), which is linked from this article, has more extensive sourcing, and appears to contain the same information. Bakazaka (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Brian Johnson (Bethel Music singer) as suggested by Bakazaka. Note that there are articles for four albums released under the Brian & Jenn name, which are listed yet again at Brian's solo article. A redirect allows those album articles to remain (assuming that they are themselves notable), and there should be no problem if a user clicks on Brian & Jenn from one of those albums and gets redirected to Brian's page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:20, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana (actress)[edit]

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

Technical SNG passes are not enough for a BLP when the subject clearly fails GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 21:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough sourcing to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid Keep. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). You need to check the WP:BEFORE. These people do not often screen well on quality RS for GNG for obvious reasons, hence WP:PORNBIO. Britishfinance (talk) 02:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 04:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don’t know how many times I have to say this but winning an award is not enough for an article. There are no independent, reliable sources here. No career to speak of as she retired over two decades ago. Trillfendi (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single listing on "some website". Not clear this is reliable at all or even affiliated with any official organization. A collection of roles from "some other website" apparently written and maintained by volunteers. So basically no more reliable than Wikipedia. A puff interview on "some website". What appears to be mostly badly written erotic fiction, just in case we need a citation for whether "Decker pronged her wet hole". It's not clear that any of these are at all useful for a BLP, and the name is so exceedingly generic that I'm finding plenty of sources about plenty of people, but none of it is about her. Winning an award doesn't mean we keep a poorly sourced flagrant BLP violation and pretend it's an encyclopedia article. GMGtalk 13:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete awful sourcing and a bunch of BLP violating details. Fails WP:ENT Legacypac (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with her major industry award and WP:ENT #3, probably passes WP:NEXIST since was active sort of "pre-internet." SportingFlyer T·C 05:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; fails WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities Anonymous[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews listed at imdb and there is no entry at rotten tomatoes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 04:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Big failure of WP:GNG (significant coverage in reliable secondary sources) and WP:V (verifiability with any source). Not able to find a single secondary source reference in my searches (nor there is any present in the article). I am not even completely sure if this is a hoax or it actually exists. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:15, 3 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zero to Infinity (Raftaar album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Neither this stub nor a Google search shows independent coverage. This draft does not provide any information except content of the album; there is no Reception section, for instance. Google search shows that it exists, finds this article, and finds that it has been publicized, but not by independent sources.

This article has been periodically stubbed down and is back in article space with inadequate information. Draftification would be reasonable, but there already is a draft that is the same as this article, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 04:41, 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Stage[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - that event being gossip-magazine coverage of her appearance while pregnant. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Coverage in People Magazine and on ABC News is enough for GNG. WOPR (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--no, that kind of coverage is not enough per GNG. Delete: no significant discussion, nothing here of any lasting importance. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editing could fix the WP:BLPPRIVACY issue with the birth records/possible-but-not-confirmed family information, the unbylined TMZ source, the obvious WP:GOSSIP, the selective discussion of her ethnic background, and the unsourced Fashion Nova claim inserted by the creator of the Fashion Nova article. But what's left would be, at best, WP:BLP1E, just like the nominator said. Bakazaka (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakazaka: Many sources have described her as “Costa Rican model” even though she’s from California, with some vague, unspecified “European” heritage as well. So why anyone would put something as general as “European” is insignificant. I don’t see how it’s relevant here when it’s simply a biographical detail given in the source. With regard to Fashion Nova, another irrelevant minutiae, I created the article out of annoyance of it being bombarded by it in the media every 5 minutes yet it not having a Wikipedia article. I could give less of a damn about the company at large and don’t see how creating two independent articles is mutually exclusive. Fashion Nova’s business model is to pay “super” influencers like Kylie Jenner to promote their promote their products, along with thousands of people like Stage. Anyone with the capability to google can easily look into that. It’s just funny how all of a sudden WP:NEXIST isn’t applied here. Trillfendi (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Union Pacific heritage fleet. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific 1982[edit]

Union Pacific 1982 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These are non-notable locomotives known only for their paint schemes. There has not been substantial independent press coverage, nor is there any distinguishing factor (like preservation) other than the paint scheme. (Compare, for example, to clearly-notable preserved locomotives Pennsylvania Railroad 4800 and Pennsylvania Railroad 4935, which have vastly more coverage and more to actually include in the articles.) Four of the six articles only have a single source that does not directly discuss the locomotives.

Also included in this AfD:

Union Pacific 1983 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Union Pacific 1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Union Pacific 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Union Pacific 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Union Pacific 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Template:UP Heritage Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all. Coverage for the individual engines with predecessor livery is sparse. Coverage of the fleet in general is somewhat more extant. The preferred term in most of the sources appears to be Union Pacific heritage fleet, so I'd suggest that as the title for an article that can cover all of these (and several other "heritage" train components maintained by the company). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per the above suggestion; seems reasonable to me. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 06:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per the above suggestion; you don't need a separate article for the special UP locomotives, with 4141 being the exception. Just merge all heritage locomotive articles together. Besides, of all the other operators of heritage locomotives, they don't have separate articles for each locomotive either. On the other hand, please leave the UP 4141 article alone. Don't delete it. As it a very special locomotive that was commissioned for a former president, it deserves its own article. Davidng913 (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep arguments provide evidence of notability. Michig (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey in Lahore[edit]

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

Not enough for notability, fails WP:NFILM. Störm (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found these very quickly and there a lot more references I have not checked. Not sure how much BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the above reliable sources that have been identified for WP:GNG, the Variety piece is particularly convincing, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Crappy article that was mostly a copyright violation (admins may want to look at getting rid of offending versions). That said, film is notable. In addition to above there is coverage in this book and some in this. Don't know how much but get "The case in point atVIFF was Faramarz K-Rahber’s documentary Donkey in Lahore ... high ground of knowledge and truth, explaining the quaint ways of the natives. Donkey in Lahore gained...". Also reviewed by Michael Lallo in The Age, 14 February 2008, "When love transcends all borders". Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:05, 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 merge to Chew (comics). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chew (film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, the notability test for most film requires the film to get released and receive reviews from film critics. But this cites just two pieces of production-announcement coverage, which is nowhere near enough to make an unreleased film notable yet, and according to the most recent update its entire status is now in doubt as even its IMDb profile has been scrubbed completely. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move it to the draft space. Better than lose all the work that have been done--SirEdimon (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Articles don't get retained in draftspace indefinitely either — if something doesn't happen within six months to change its notability enough to get it restored to articlespace again, then it will get deleted from there too. In the incredibly unlikely event that this ever actually gets released, we can undelete the article if we want to recover the past work. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. But at least it gives the article six months. If nothing happens, the draft can be deleted.--SirEdimon (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Chew (comics). Deletion is a non-starter when other, better options are on the table. PC78 (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 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. Randykitty (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Miraculous animated musical[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film that hasn't been released yet, and doesn't even have a confirmed title yet. As always, we do not create or maintain an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions for extremely notable films (e.g. the Star Wars franchise) that generate a lot of production coverage, the notability test for most films is that they have been released, and received reviews from film critics. But this isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to get it into the "special case of significantly greater notability than most other unreleased films" basket -- it cites one brief mention of the fact that a film was planned in an article that's primarily about the regular TV series the film is being adapted from, and is otherwised sourced entirely to the producers' own self-published Twitter tweets. This is not how you make a film notable enough for a Wikipedia article this far in advance of its commercial release. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator that this film, planned for release in 2021, is way WP:TOOSOON. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:57, 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. Michig (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Schulman/Joost project[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the directors have WP:BLP articles does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment they announce that they're working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A film that has actually been shot, with references to casting and production, and movies and plots are sometimes kept underwraps, and shot without titles. Vmars22 (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's lots of really good sources here to help show its notability with a very well known cast, and it passes NFILM. Perhaps most importantly is that the fact that principal photography has begun (and indeed finished). Cindlevet (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that the fact it doesn't have a title is irrelevant; that doesn't mean the project isn't notable, and no policy suggests you need one before creating an article. Cindlevet (talk) 23:09, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R. S. Karthik[edit]

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

Non notable actor who’s claim to fame is an untitled character in a film. Fails nactor Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely non-notable actor. Ajf773 (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject may not yet be notable, but I must point out that he played the lead role of Smoothu in Peechankai, not an untitled character, as confirmed by reliable sources found by the Google News search linked by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 out of 3 of those are interviews or at best and one is a rehashing of the other but they're all basically WP:CHURNALISM. Praxidicae (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should not be "scraping". This is a media-BLP which means that they thow up refs are part of their media work. These sould not be taken a RS on the subject themselves. The guy has only been in one film with a $140,000 budget whose own WP article is a potential AfD (which means there is a strong COI/UDP issue here). Britishfinance (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's perfectly acceptable to give an opinion that this should be deleted, but "per nom" is not a valid opinion as the nominator's statement that this actor only played an untitled character in a film is a bare-faced lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except as I commented above, there is still virtually no coverage of this person despite his supposed "starring" in this film of questionable notability. Therefor per nom could also be referring to my comments. At the time I searched for this there weren't any independent, in depth, reliable sources, as remains the case now. Praxidicae (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that might be true, but you shouldn't overstate the case for deletion by lying that the subject played an untitled character when it was actually the lead role. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're being unduly harsh here and stating this as if my intent was to deceive. At the time when I afd'd this with the sources available to me it showed no main role in a film of note under his name R.S. Karthik. It wasn't until later that the sources stating such were found but my point still stands that he is not currently notable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trying to rewrite history. This is how the article looked when you nominated it for deletion. Notability may not have been demonstrated, but it was perfectly clear that the subject played the lead, named, role in Peechankai, which makes your nomination statement a clear lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger Why make these comments when your point is not material to the outcome. Under any WP:BEFORE check, this subject is a delete. I could edit the article myself and get it close to a WP:A7. Do you really think that this subject, based on the information available on him – none of which is a material quality RS on the subject himself (the critical component for a media-BLP) – makes him notable. There are AfD's in the queue that have not even had a comment, and you spend your time like this? Making "contrived" cases to create borderline BLPs is a fools game in WP unless the subject is a figure of long-term historical importance. This guy is not. Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's important that people should know that they will be called out when they tell lies, whether in a correct cause or not. Don't you? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken an extreme view that a mistake is definately a lie. If that is the case, then AfD is full of liars as many AfDs have mistakes or inaccuracies in their proposals. I have seen such mistakes in some of your contributions Phil, but I don't call you a "liar". I make comments in many AfDs without voting to note potential mistakes (and such comments have been made to me on my contributions). But I do not assume that they are "lying". What is even worse, you take such an extreme view for an AfD which is not only a Delete, but is most likely a COI/UDP case – E.g. the basis of this article is a lie? Britishfinance (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not lie. Lying implies that I did something with the intent to deceive. That is not the case here. I made a mistake which I admitted and I still stand by my comment that when I initially looked at the article, it appeared to me that he had not held a major named role. If you want to take my temporary inability to read as a malicious act, do so elsewhere because this has gone far off course and I've since expanded on why he is not notable. Further, if you think that I am acting maliciously, please take it to the appropriate venue. Thanks.Praxidicae (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naked for a Cause[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; an charity initiative that distributed "celebrity nude calendars" with no significant notability. The sources in the article are primarily promotional. Allied45 (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page (this an article on the actual calendar that was distributed):

Gods of Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Allied45 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nominator that lacks notability contemporary or lasting, with a bit of routine or promotional coverage and nothing else. Aspirex (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to McGrath_Foundation#McGrath Foundation initiatives with due weight, both articles, ie, only a couple of sentences each. Neither article is notable in its own right, but could be a fan or cult following search term, and are of possible respective interest. Aoziwe (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of organization-related deletion discussions. Aoziwe (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't look like a merge is appropriate, as this benefits, but is not an initiative by, McGrath, as far as I can tell. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTINHERETED; attractive people in the buff do not confer any notability they may have upon these topics. Madness Darkness 15:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor Talk 07:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ERNI Electronics[edit]

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

De-prodded with the rationale "no". Original nomination rationale was Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 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. Sandstein 10:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McKenzie Lee[edit]

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

Best new starlet isn't enough if the subject clearly fails GNG Spartaz Humbug! 18:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes it does. You need to familiarise yourself with WP:PORNBIO. If you want to check the "major" awards, WP have a whole articles on the AVN Awards (including one for each of the 36 or so, 36th AVN Awards), which helpfully list out the "major awards" for you - one of which is "Best new starlet". Britishfinance (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You can find the list of "major" AVN awards in WP here (36th AVN Awards), and it lists Best New Starlet as a "major award". We need to stick to WP:PAG and WP:PORNBIO here, and somebody's personal view on these actresses (which I know are contraversial), "contrived" outside of these PAGs. Britishfinance (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if you have to rely on PORNBIO because good sourcing is not available then the point is missed. Needs to meet GNG and WP:ENT which this person does not. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:BASIC. Best New Starlet does not even meet the (more or less discredited) PORNBIO, as the article on it has been deleted for lack of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources. AVN interviews are practically primary sources. Trillfendi (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Cindlevet (talk) 19:46, 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. Randykitty (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnni Black[edit]

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

Precedent best new starlet isn't enough if the performer fails GNG Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes it does. You need to familiarise yourself with WP:PORNBIO. If you want to check the "major" awards, WP have a whole articles on the AVN Awards (including one for each of the 36 or so, 36th AVN Awards), which helpfully list out the "major awards" for you - one of which is "Best new starlet".
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it is. She meets WP:PORNBIO ("The person has won a well-known and significant industry award"). Britishfinance (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:PORNBIO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are few references, but they satisfy GNG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do awards for "new" or "upcoming" really indicate the same level of significance or notability as other awards from the same source? Almost by definition, the only competition is other people who haven't yet won any awards. The article only shows 2 awards — AVN Best New Starlet and FOXE Video Vixen — both limited to new/upcoming people, in the same year, and the article doesn't indicate that she won any awards when competing with what you might call "people who win awards". Contrast this person with other performers who have won these "new" awards but also picked up awards that well-established recipients earn. --Closeapple (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:BASIC; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is passing, primary, and / or WP:SPIP. Per much prior precedent, including several DRs, a technical PORNBIO pass -- which is dubious in this case -- does not exempt a BLP from sourcing requirements. The article on the award has been itself deleted confirming that it's not a significant award. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PORNBIO rules are there for a reason, as the New York Times does not like doing interviews with these people. That is why the GNG criteria are not applied. Any AVN award winner is a better known figure (no pun intended), then many GNG BLPs in WP. If you want to rewrite WP policy on PORNBIO you can propose change, however, in the absense of such change, she meets PORNBIO. Britishfinance (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance: The New York Times published op-eds and columns by Stoya and Kayden Kross ... Trillfendi (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why don’t people get it? Winning an award doesn’t automatically make an adult film performer notable when they have no career to actually speak of. Least of all, Best New Starlet. If it was Female Performer of the Year or Best Actress then I could see keeping it. Literally NO career! One movie? Get outta here. Trillfendi (talk)
    • Comment Black was in over 300 movies, so not sure how you came up with her only being in one. You're obviously are not familiar with her career at all other than glancing over the article. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PORNBIO is not a tool to toss out GNG. A "New performer" award is a good indication the person has not had enough of a career to gain notability. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 22:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While AVN Awards winning stands, that makes the sole claim of her notability. So she fails WP:BLP1E. Also Legacypac raises a good argument of WP:TOOSOON. WP:GNG wise I am not able to find any multiple significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, so she fails it as well. Nothing much in my searches, and to no surprise the article relies on AVN references. TonyTheTiger's vote should be disregarded as a failure per WP:JUSTAPOLICY as the policy is cited but no reason as to why. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 3 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. No Consensus on the redirect issue. I'm not going to create the redirect, but if somebody else wants to, they can do so on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stony Point Pass[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. SITH (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Has wp:BEFORE been performed? No assertion about it in the deletion nomination. Searching should be done under "Stony Point Pass" and the county road number as one alternative name, and perhaps other names. --Doncram (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- A google search only comes up with real estate listings. If another editor is going to make accusations that the person purposing deletion didn't do a BEFORE search, the least he could do is provide some sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find nothing notable about this road and am a big fan of this essay. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Comment. This page seems to have been made to get pointy with the US Government. See this from pages creation "Except for a small section the road remains unpaved; this fact remains true despite the fact that the United States Tax payers have paved roads in Iraq and Afghanastan. Stony Point Pass is a pock marked lunar landscap that could be used by NASA to test new lunar vehicles". (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Redirect to Virginia State Route 600, as it is one of several secondary state highways in the state with that number. This is something a very basic WP:BEFORE would have found as a alternative to deletion and I am shocked nobody bothered to do that over the course of this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are better uses of our time than creating redirects for all of them, and some might share names with other notable roads in which case they shouldn't be redirected at all, but redirects are cheap and I don't see the harm in redirecting this one. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_February_24&oldid=1142224606"