Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 February	1 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neptoon Studios[edit]

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

No sources. Searching turns up very little. Does not meet WP:NCORP. MB 23:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources verifying notability. The text was created by a kamikaze account and filled in by an account only active for a few months around the time of the text's creation. Possibly a case of pure promotion, but let's graciously just say that it's too soon. -The Gnome (talk) 12:37, 6 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) 00:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nakh (Bible acronym)[edit]

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

Essentially a dictionary definition of an acronym with almost no usage. Moreover, "NaKh" is just a substring of the acronym "TaNaKh"––at most this subject deserves a sentence in the Hebrew Bible article, although I'm skeptical that there's even wide enough usage to justify that. See also WP:NEOLOGISM _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Hebrew Bible article already lists the books of Nevi'im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writing). Nakh is just another way of grouping these two into one program of study. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge to Hebrew Bible: Like the nominator, I don't see it deserving more than a sentence at Hebrew Bible - but I am seeing enough usage (particularly in academic papers) to justify it as a search term to help those of us whose Hebrew is not up to recognising Hebrew-derived acronyms. PWilkinson (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant. One of the many acronyms. Sdmarathe (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The lack of significant sources rule our merging. When we do not have sources for a text we do not dump it elsewhere; we delete it. -The Gnome (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan[edit]

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

I don't see any indication that the subject's work is widely cited enough to meet WP:NACADEMIC, nor does there appear to be enough independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The subject has a profile on ResearchGate which claims 5 published papers and 37 citations (which would mean a maximum h-index of 5, a rather low number), and a Google Scholar search does not turn up any better-cited works. It's not impossible that there are some papers that aren't being properly indexed by either of those sites, but I was unable to find anything by doing an internet search of the subject's name. The "South Asia Research and Information Institute" that the article credits the subject with founding similarly seems to have had no significant impact. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable; promotional article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACADEMIC. There are a few citations in some books' bibliographies and little else. This is a propping up exercise, more than anything, with possibly a WP:COI issue. --The Gnome (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love You Two[edit]

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

Upcoming TV series sourced to one incidental mention (albeit in two languages...). Can't find anything better, but I am unlikely to discover the Tagalog sources. If no better sources can be provided, this currently fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG, and should be redirected to GMA Network. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say do not redirect -- this is just a case of TOOSOON. After it's broadcast, it will likely neet GNG without any issues and there should be no prejudice for recreation. matt91486 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erm. We do NOT deal in presumed future notability; it's always about the demonstrable current state. If and when notability arises at some point, a redirect is exactly what you want to have in place to turn into an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely understand your rationale for saying that, however, at the same time, I think red links are more likely to encourage article creation than redirects are. (No idea if there's actual data on it somewhere in the index of myriad conflicting policies). I think my comment was there to reflect the current state of the article (I did not say keep, notice.) However, if the show is indeed nationally broadcast as forecast, we can logically assume it will meet the GNG without any issues at that time -- hence my reference to WP:TOOSOON -- and at that point we would want an article. So my saying not redirect was simply my own view on what would make the creation of that article, when it will be notable, most likely. matt91486 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Our collective lack of Tagalog skills means that I'm not confident that my or the nom's internet searches for coverage of this series are proof that there is no existing coverage, but ultimately burden of proof falls to the editors who added the content, and the currently available sources do not demonstrate that notability guidelines have been met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject being too much in a hurry to break our ball. It's most probably all part of the 'pre-opening marketing-salvoes' and we're in the line of fire. Well, sorry but no. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early and too many unreferenced edits.TheHotwiki (talk) 08:42, 7 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty League (Historic)[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability requirements. A one time newspaper ad placed by a few celebrities in 1920 does not a "political organization" make. The Liberty League was disbanded less than a year later and accomplished no significant acts or deeds, political or otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrSangChi (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A misconceived nomination. The question is whether the organisation was noticed by multiple independent sources, and got coverage, which I'm sure it did, not whether it accomplished anything significant.Rathfelder (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Rathfelder. The book sources cited in the article, along with others found by searches such as this, demonstrate notability. The fact that this organisation only lasted a short time before being absorbed into National Propaganda doesn't stop it from being notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject was of short duration but it is notable (e.g. extensive write up in The British Empire: A Historical Encyclopedia) and still invoked today (e.g. by the Foundation for Economic Education in articles such as this). The article clearly offers encyclopaedic value. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons given above. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 7 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Ward (model)[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Anyone with the ability to google can take 2 seconds to find out that her sister, Gemma Ward, is considered one of the biggest supermodels of the 21st century. Sophie Ward, however, has no independent sources to establish this article. Only a primary source, an article she wrote about herself in a regional newspaper. Even in an article about her writing a book, they still managed to make it about Gemma’s acting endeavors. For an article of only 6 sentences, what does that tell you? Trillfendi (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as pass of WP:GNG with significant coverage of this specific subject in multiple, independent, reliable sources. In older coverage, there's a 2006 page 2 Sydney Morning Herald profile "In the line of beauty: The lowdown" by Vivienne Skinner (25 Feb 2006) and a 2005 profile as a "rising star" in WWD by Patty Huntington (volume 190, issue 15, page 16S). More recently there is coverage of her writing and publishing efforts ([1] [2] [3] (note text, as this is a photo essay), see also V Magazine volume 65, Summer 2010, page 42.) It's true that someone else in her family is more famous, but that doesn't erase the coverage she has received. Bakazaka (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ As far as I can tell there are at least two, possibly three, people by this name who are "models" so without some direct knowledge it is hard to judge, but even combined the coverage is pretty low. The current referencing in the article does not get over the GNG line, and certainly N is not inherited. I could be convinced to change to keep if some one could properly reference the article, WP:NEXIST not being sufficient here due to the apparent overlapping coverage on multiple people. Aoziwe (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See below for change reason. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator already pointed out, sources about this Sophie Ward typically mention the relationship to her sister, which makes it easy to figure out who is who. See, for example, the half a dozen sources on this specific subject already provided above. Bakazaka (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did see some of those myself. My concern is aligned with typically mention the relationship to her sister. Does the subject have notability in their own right? Aoziwe (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the sources above is significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources of Sophie Ward and what she has done. The sources also mention that she has a more famous sister. Both of these statements can be true at the same time. Bakazaka (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like to me that the vast majority of the coverage, SMH, Age, West, is soley because the subject has connections to far more famous people, and that if those connections did not exist there would be next to nothing. I think we will just have to agree to disagree. (Note that a male association footballer would romp it in!) Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being related to somebody else famous may have opened doors for her, but she is the primary focus of coverage and mentioning famous relatives does not detract from the fact that she is the primary subject of the article -- Whpq (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: I’m not talking about the article being about the subject it’s clearly about, I’m talking about notability itself. It’s clearly not there. The fact that this article existed so long on a dead primary source says it all. Trillfendi (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear in my wording. She is the primary subject of the news articles. The coverage pointed out by user:Bakazaka is sufficient to show notability. -- Whpq (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: Yet still, nothing has been found for her career that can even independently validate any statement of this article. Not even FMD. “Model exists” and “model moves” aren’t notability. Trillfendi (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles about exclusively the subject in The West Australian (here), the French Vogue (here), the Sunday Times of Western Australia (here), and so on, unearthed by Bakazaka, seal it. The subject meets WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep. Yes you are technically correct as per the current guidelines. People do not have to have done anything particularly notable, they just have to have been noted as having done something not entirely routine by multiple independent reliable sources in a sustained fashion and they ARE notable. In this case the only reason they do get reported on is because of who they have connections to, but none-the-less they are reported on. Aoziwe (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll keep saying it. Coverage about her for being an existing model who got discovered in tandem with her sister yet absolutely nothing to confirm any statement about her career as a model. What’s the point. Trillfendi (talk) 15:48, 7 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. If somebody wants to mention this in another article (with good sources, of course), they're free to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton ceiling[edit]

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

As noted by User:Mathglot in Talk:Cotton_ceiling#Notability, "This topic is of doubtful notability for having its own article, and it is difficult to find significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention outside the blogosphere and opinion forums. There is virtually no news coverage (NYT searches for the term turn up articles on crop prices), and the one book reference is by a kook conspiracy theorist. Not every neologism that is created and causes some furious interactions on Twitter, blogs, or forums for a while deserves its own article." I myself looked both last June and this month for sources about the topic, and didn't spot any high-quality academic sources about the topic, but only sources mentioning it, mostly in passing, while discussing other things—and as noted, the results when searching e.g. Google Books or the NYT are mostly/often about price ceilings for actual cotton. I propose that the article be deleted. (Failing that, perhaps a much condensed summary could be merged into the article Trans woman.) -sche (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because it doesn’t appear to have general notability at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Mathglot. ShimonChai (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I won't argue for or against deletion of the article, but it does seem like the phrase comes up often enough in academic sources to where it should most likely be mentioned somewhere, even if just in passing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to merging a (markedly) condensed summary to Trans woman or Transgender. On the talk page, I just put together two possible starting drafts for what such a summary could look like, if this AfD ends up favoring that approach. :) -sche (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh most definitely - I was thinking about maybe 1-3 sentences max. From my research it seems to be mentioned often enough to where I think it should be mentioned somewhere at the very least, especially as it's something that I can imagine someone looking for. I think that the drafts are good, but I'd include the bit I added about the term's creator responding to the term and their clarification. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC):[reply]

I have no objection to -sche's proposal. Mathglot (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Online searches prove Mathglot's point. Off line nothing was found (though the search was limited to books and general-readership publications). -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 6 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. Clear consensus to keep, and it looks like this has received a total rewrite during the course of this discussion, so the WP:CV problems have been resolved.

I'll add two personal observations. One, please see WP:DAILYMAIL. The other is that the hatnote, For Shamima Begum, who is currently in the UK news... is really confusing. Somebody should rewrite that to be more explicit about properly identifying the two people. Consider what, currently in the UK news will mean to a reader 10 years from now. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmeena Begum[edit]

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

We already have the Bethnal Green trio article (which incidently was the only wiki page to show when I googled this "person"'s name.. Do we really need separate articles for all these bastards? I don't see how she's notable enough for a separate article... Openlydialectic (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE I just googled the subject and found she does passes General Notability @Openlydialectic: could you please elaborate Rationale? MrZINE | talk 21:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article was created by a user now indefinitely blocked for copyright violations, and is no exception to the norm for that user – blatant foundational copying from the various sources. I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP. Anyone who wants to read the content will need to access it through the page history; if the page is to be kept, it will need to be completely rewritten from scratch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Justlettersandnumbers may be correct that the original revision was tainted by material that violated copyright, but the article has been added to, and rewritten, by multiple individuals since then. If only a fraction of he version they blanked contained material tainted by copyright violation, would it have made more sense to excise only the portion that actually did violate copyright?
  I accept policy allows simply deleting material contributed by someone blocked for copyright violation. But is it the intent of that policy to delete material that was once a copyright violation, that has subsequently been rewritten by innocent good faith contributors, and which no longer violates copyright? Surely the policy does not justify deleting brand new content that has nothing to do with the original copyright violation? Geo Swan (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio problem is now resolved, thanks to Jake Brockman. Anyone is free to edit and improve the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support It seems the Bethnel trios article covers her story well enough. We don't need to really give this girl that much attention as to create a whole new article about her simultaneously repeating the same information found in Bethnal_Green_trio#Aftermath. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for one thing - which as mentioned above is probably covered in the three girls article. Anything new about Begum can be updated in that article. No need for a separate article as she is not notable outside of this one original event and everything that has happened since to her is connected to it. Games of the world (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the language of this nomination is appropriate and I'd therefore question the neutrality of this nomination. Shamima Begum and Sharmeema Begum are two different people. @Atcovi: @Games of the world: Sharmeema is not part of the Bethnal Green trio and should therefore be covered separately - unless the Bethnal Green article is somehow "upgraded" to cover all girls who left for ISIL. We do sort of have Brides of ISIL for this. Sharmeema certainly passes WP:GNG on her own given she has been covered over the years in various articles and contexts. So in essence, copyright issues aside, this should primarily be a merger discussion. Copyvio can be fixed/revdel'd _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per totally inappropriate language in nom. This is not a nom in my opinion. Other than that WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subjects notable only for one event WP:BLP1E Legion X (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her notability has been sustained and the 'one event' of her leaving has lasted several years. Even though the nominations language is not neutral, we can still try to be. It is not our place to decide if she should be notable, only if she is. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Change to Redirect. I foolishly tried rewriting the copyright material. After a wasted hour I now believe the relevant material is best cover in one artical for all three. It will prevent some confusion and duplication. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a biography of one event. She is only loosely related to the Bethnal Green trio. Sustained coverage consists of incidental mentions of other ISIS brides in coverage of Shamima Begum. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the fence between keep or redirect here; redirect would probably be the best course of action right now, especially considering the copyright violation issues, but there may be enough information on Begum to warrant a separate article in the future. I would also raise the point that the language of this nomination is wholly inappropriate, which leads me to suspect that this nomination is not in good faith. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bangalamania. Another way of looking at it: She already has her own page as the Bethnal Green trio(she seems the most notable of the three). All the information that should be on her page, should also be on the trio page, 100% overlap = redirect. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

@Dushan Jugum:@Bangalamania: Bethnal Green trio does not cover Sharmeena. She is only mentioned once in the context with a referral to the Sharmeena Begum article. Note, Sharmeena Begum and Shamima Begum are two entirely different, unrelated people. This keeps getting confused. As this keeps happening and Sharmeena does meet GNG IMO, an article should be kept. I will happily volunteer re. the copyvio. Also, re the language, the nominator has since been blocked as sockpuppet. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jake Brockman. It seems I have been part of the problem, I knew there was two I just had them mixed up. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Whoops, thanks for alerting me to that Jake Brockman. On that basis I change my vote to keep but rewrite (due to copyvio issues; possibly a merger with one of the non-copyvio drafts below would seem most appropriate). --Bangalamania (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - subject is clearly notable - and independently so of the trio (which she isn't part of - she left a couple of months earlier). There is quite wide coverage here. The sole reason I am not voting for retention of the article is that we currently have a almost completely blanked article due to copyvio concerns. Should the article remain in the current state, then a deletion (even possibly speedy) with no prejudice for recreation would be a good result. I don't think I'm interested in rescuing this one myself - but it is possible to rescue. Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have stared a non-copyvio draft at Talk:Sharmeena Begum/Temp for consideration should this pass AfD. I'm open to merge this, however this will likely require a separate conversation if the scope of Bethnal Green trio should be broadened. Pinging @Icewhiz: considering his comment. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmeena was the first Bethnal Green girl to go to Syria. Expanding the article scope to cover the four of them with a selective merge sounds viable to me. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jake for the draft. Agree with the merger proposal. Can't see anything in the draft that can't be covered in the Bethnal Green article if it is expanded to cover this "forerunner." Games of the world (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bethnal Green trio, move content from Talk:Sharmeena Begum/Temp to there. Me three to the arguments above - seems we can have one article on all the Bethnal Green travelers to Syria. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seeing that non-copyvio sourced version is in place now, and this individual meets GNG. Merge to the trio or brides article may be possible - but this meets notability standalong.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged Bethnal Green trio with a merger proposal hat note and pinged the editors who were part of the renaming discussion earlier. This AfD seems to tend towards a merger and if so decided this has a knock-on effect on that article. I am in principle not opposed to the merger, however I would raise that media coverage across the spectrum tends to be along the line of "the three" (including Shamima) and "Sharmeena". Not sure why, but she is not really mixed with the "trio" to form a "quartet". _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Brides of ISIL. She is notable [4] [5] [6]. Do not merge to the article about the trio because she is only tangentially relevant, which is already explained there. I support merging to Brides of ISIL because there is nothing exceptional about her. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E. wumbolo ^^^ 19:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- GNG is the wikidocument relevant here. Both Sharmeena Begum, and her friend with a similar name, Shamima Begum are indepentently notable, are covered by sufficient reliable sources to meet our criteria for a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual has received significant attention in the UK. Multiple reliable sources discussing her clearly indicates notability. Keiiri (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject easily meets WP:GNG, WP:PERSON, and our gaze when we were watching TV news almost every morning these past few weeks. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 6 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) 11:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cgiapp[edit]

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

Lacked significant sources since creation, by SPA, in June 2013. I cannot find in-depth coverage in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. There are many projects, but it's secondary sourcing that makes these notable and this doesn't have it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced text about a subject of marginal notability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:40, 6 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centrals Junior Football Club, Wangaratta[edit]

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

Junior sports team unsourced since creation, by a SPA, in May 2015. I can't find any in-depth coverage in RS. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from what nominator wrote, also fails WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with a good due weight trim to Wangaratta#Sport. Definitely not notable in its own right, but yes does have sufficient community contextual interest for a redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with JC and SF. A redirect can always be created later, and the content merged would be no more than a single sentence. – Teratix ₵ 14:28, 8 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) 11:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. Ray Scott[edit]

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

Small town Louisiana mayor who doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Sources used (which are a memorial on a funeral home's website, his federal death records through ancestry.com, and an unlinked local newspaper article about him being elected mayor) fail to establish WP:GNG and a further search did not turn up anything to help establish notability. GPL93 (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- local mayor, needs significant coverage to be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to Hathorn not every mayor of any place in Louisiana is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable as a basketball player and being elected mayor of a small town does not meet WP:NPOL. Sandals1 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete no notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:56, 7 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. Despite the defective nomination and WP:SPA / WP:SOCK involvement, there's clear consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The People's Brexit Campaign[edit]

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

MrZINE 18:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Iamzine13: What is the deletion rationale for this article, which was created an hour and a half ago? Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer To @Bakazaka: this article does not have citation and please read WP:RS & WP:GNG MrZINE 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you nominate, please follow all of the applicable instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, including the one that says to replace "Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted". If you don't provide a rationale in your AfD nominations, they can be closed as "speedy keep" on procedural grounds (see WP:SKCRIT). Also note that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" (see WP:NPOSSIBLE), so lack of citations is not, by itself, a sufficient argument for deleting an article. Bakazaka (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I agree with Bakazaka that this nomination was perhaps malformed, the article appears to be a publication of the organization's manifesto (violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) rather than a description of the organization itself. While a Google search for "The People's Brexit" gets a fair number of hits, it is unclear that any of them refer to this (or any) specific organization (violating WP:ORG). It should be noted that I rejected a draft on this topic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I rewrote this article after the original article was prevented from being edited further after I edited it based on the suggestions to make it more neutral. I felt guilty as the original author was then prevented from editing it any more if they wished to because of me and the only way I could think of to make amends was to write a new article. It took me a long time and I thought it was very neutral and in comparison with a lot of articles on Wikipedia it is extremely neutral and it was edited back to the bone but some content has to remain or else there would be nothing left and it would be criticised for not being informative enough. It is not, as claimed, the 'manifesto' as I do not know what that is! Wikipedia states that the rules are not 'set in stone and also that 'there are no rules' and Wikipedia is supposed to be for the benefit and enjoyment of all so this attempted censorship of what I think is a good well written article is at odds with this. Further, that as a National Campaign with a growing following and a website, www.thepeoplesbrexit.org, The People's Brexit is entitled to a Wikipedia page under the Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I feel that this article is being judged as a finished product when under Wikipedia it is supposed to be like any one of the other thousands of articles and never finished, always developing. It has also been commented that there is not much history about the Campaign but it has only been going for two months and there is not much history, that will also come with time as the page is developed. Also I did not deliberately by pass the draft process when I wrote the article as was claimed, for some reason I was not given that option. I must say that this type of censorship and harsh judgement not only upsets me but it makes me very reluctant to ever try and benefit Wikipedia by writing any more articles when people wish to delete your hard work instead of trying to improve it. Also it seems that some people would rather just criticise the work of others rather than producing their own and seem to get enjoyment from destroying it. The only thing they really achieve by this is destroying the whole heart and soul of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerty (talk • contribs) 00:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a front organization of the Communist Party of Britain, but there aren't even sufficient sources to support a brief mention in that article, let alone enough to support a standalone article. Fails WP:ORG.--Pontificalibus 06:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 07:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I am nothing to do with the Communist Party of Britain and I resent this allegation of my article being written under these circumstances! It is extremely unfair to base a delete vote on something that is not true! If you care to actually read the article you will see that under the See Also section it refers to 'Conservatives For Britain' which completely refutes your allegations.

Diggerty (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per person please. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Diggerty: No one accused you of being a member of the Communist Party; only that "The People's Brexit" is a front for the Communist Party. You have explicitly stated that you "found this very interesting and informative article in a draft format and edited it as recommended by a previous reader." Your reaction here indicates that, rather than simply "coming across" this article, you may, in fact, be involved with this organization. If you are, that would be a conflict of interest that I think you should disclose as part of this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clear up the issues raised, firstly, it is obvious from both the original article and looking at the website there is no connection at all between The People's Brexit and the British Communist Party as it is clearly a politically neutral, cross-party, Campaign Group. Secondly, I was actually referring to the previous reader of the original article who recommended the edits that I did to make it more Wikipedia compliant. Maybe I should have correctly called them 'the Wikipedia editor' instead of 'reader' to avoid this type of confusion and I would have done if I had thought you would use this innocent comment as ammunition against me! Equally though you should not jump to the wrong conclusion and be so judgemental and bullying! I am not on trial here and you are not the Wikipolice! As I said, I just came across the article and found it interesting and informative and that is all there is to it and I resent yet more spurious allegations against me personally and consider it a personal attack, which as you know Wikipedia takes as a very serious matter.

Diggerty (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diggerty: My comment was not related to your use of the term "reader" vs "editor". My comment was in regard to your taking personal umbrage at the accusation that this organization might be related to the Communist Party of Britain. Since you spoke of the draft as something that you just happened upon (as opposed to something that you are personally involved with), I thought your reaction was odd, and it made me suspect that you may, in fact, be involved with the organization, which, if true, you should disclose based on Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules. If you are not associated with the organization, and merely took umbrage because you thought the accusation of Communist Party affiliation was aimed at you, rather than at the organization, than everything is fine, and we can just move along. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and also WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 if it wasn't already at AfD. I would have said to redirect to Communist Party of Britain but it turns out there are two of them — the other is Communist Party of Britain (Marxist–Leninist) — so I have no idea which to redirect to. The subject fails WP:ORG/WP:GNG: This organization is not the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. In fact the only mention I could find is in the article "Morning Star still in knots over Brexit" from 2019-02-20 on a London communist website (Alliance for Workers' Liberty), a source of unknown reliability, which alleges that there were letters written by "Alex Gordon of the People’s Brexit Campaign backed by the Communist Party of Britain". (If it turns out the source is false, then that still leaves the organization with zero independent sources.) The subject meets WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 also (though, to be fair, speedy deletion usually isn't appropriate once Articles for Discussion is underway): The article doesn't even make a credible claim of significance. Being one of the multitudes of me-also "campaigns" that are on one side of Brexit or the other is not separately significant. It just gives 2 sentences about the organization, then launches into a screed of talking points about Brexit itself. (By the way, this "campaign" address is just a private mailbox service in London.) The arguments against deletion, made by the article creator, are the usual "will be notable someday" (not valid criteria) and "censorship"/"I discovered IAR and suddenly realized that my own emissions are so very important that no rules can ever apply" arguments (see WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NOTADVERTISING). --Closeapple (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although a " People's Brexit Campaign" comes up in a google search on a number of Communist Party-affiliated websites, I am getting ZERO hits in a gNews search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated above this does not appear to be a notable organisation. On top of this, the article reads more like an attempted description of the UK joining the EEC in the 1970s (ans one which gives a rather one-sided description of the event omitting evidence which would not suit the line it is taking) rather than describing the organisations support, campaigns, coverage etc. Dunarc (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any suitable sources. Leave.EU it is not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:23, 8 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 Intellectual functioning per the overlap. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual function[edit]

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

No sources even for such a vague concept. Fails GNG. RexxS (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is clearly a lot of overlap between the definitions of "intellectual function[ing]", "general mental ability", "cognition", and "intellect", among other terms. I was able to find this which defines the term "intellectual functioning" (maybe a better title for this page than the current one). IntoThinAir (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to intellectual functioning. MarkZusab (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to intellectual functioning. If there is a gap in Wikipedia's content (as suggested in the 'article', the target page would be the place to address it. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:00, 6 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Blair[edit]

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

Many of the sources are not about the subject, most appear to be trivial mentions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources comply with guidelines. Her presence on the USS Arizona is even recorded by Marshall Trimble, the Arizona’s official historian. --John B123 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While there isn't a lot of modern coverage, I say the sources seem enough. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and re-direct name to the article on USS Arizona (BB-39), where a very brief mention (or footnote) can be made; otherwise, very trivial per WP:NOTNEWS. Note: if kept, it should be changed to the name of the event, as the woman is not notable; without considering other factors (here, being the event). Kierzek (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge article into USS Arizona (BB-39).Crook1 (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the evidence that she is still alive today? She would be 113 years old by now and all those who knew her are in all likelihood no longer alive today. She had accomplished nothing for humanity. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, interesting, well written and sourced. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes V, OR, NPOV. Seems suitably interesting to be encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to pass off work onto anyone else, but I don't have time to read one of the sources I found (Madeline Blair, "By a Girl Stowaway Who Lived 5 Weeks on the Battleship Arizona", San Francisco Examiner, May 27, 1928, page 4, 20, 22). I added it to the page, but if anyone wants to look through it, they might find something more to be added to the story - with the caveat that these are Blair's own words, more or less, and might not be best treated as 100% accurate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage over time in newspapers. As for Ernesztina's comment: you don't have to "do" anything to be notable. See the Kardashians and other socialites. I also suspect that since there are multiple names she went under, we don't have her real name, so we can't hunt down her obit. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletion would be against the rules of notability. Markvs88 (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant and enduring coverage in reliable sources -- newspapers are fine for this. I am wondering what on earth "Delete Where is the evidence that she is still alive today?" has to do with a deletion discussion. Notability is not based on temporary fame nor on being alive today. This lady is most likely dead, but she appears to be the subject of detailed coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. MPS1992 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and sourced Lyndaship (talk) 07:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The repercussions appear to have been significant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting, and conforms to notability requirements. Broichmore (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; interesting and sufficiently sourced. Tupsumato (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USS Arizona (BB-39) - this strikes me as in the spirit of WP:BLP1E, even if she's likely long-dead - those who are arguing that a few newspaper articles constitutes enough coverage to justify an article would do well to read that link. Do we have sources that describe her in any aspect of her life besides the incident in question? If yes, then yes, we ought to have an article on her, but if not, the answer is equally straightforward. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Tupsumato says. It seems to have been notable at the time, and notability does not attentuate with age. Kablammo (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass notability. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks notable enough to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Continuing book coverage. Very detailed newspaper coverage. The affair resulted with 23 sailors being sentenced to 10 years (each) of jail time - so far from something passing. Possibly should be named for the event and not the person (BIO1E vs. NCRIME/NEVENT). Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you see continuing book coverage? I see a handful of mention in regard to the ship or its officers. Qwirkle (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree completely with Icewhiz, especially about the article needing a new name - the incident appears to be highly notable, but Ms Blair is unlikely to be notable in isolation from it. As the article is focused on the incident, I think that it's viable. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single event, person not otherwiseknown, much less noteworthy. Event doesnt rise above maybe a line or two in the Arizona article. Many of the arguments above do not make a case for a separate article on her, at best for coverage of the incident. Qwirkle (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage included in the article, and there was widespread coverage in 1924, at the time of the incident and during the sailors' courts martial - more references could be added from that time. Coverage is also sustained, as the existing references show. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 7 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari F8 Tributo[edit]

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

It's a poorly written article with no reasonable knowledge about the subject and consists of copy vio material. U1Quattro (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article nominated for AfD in less than an hour of its creation?[7]Oakshade (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it contains copied material and is not written by the creator himself.U1Quattro (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article and it presents a 38.7% confidence that it is a copied article when compared with the Ferrari 488 article ([8]). Plus the article doesn't even cite any sources and copy vio material from sources was not the main intention for nomination.U1Quattro (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You started an AfD because the content was 37% similar to another wikipedia article and not an actual copyrighted source? And why didn't you follow Wikipedia:Deletion policy and WP:DEL-CONTENT and simply improve the page instead of attempting to delete it? Oakshade (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the subject matter does not exist in the real world yet and is a computer rendering with its specifications based on speculations and estimates. There was no room for improvement in the absence of actual information.U1Quattro (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you under the impression that GNG is invalidated because you think the car doesn't exist? And how can a car that doesn't exist be, according to all reliable sources, in the Geneva Auto Show which is this month? Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that the car has not been publicly introduced yet. Plus the creator simply copy-paste material from the Ferrari 488 page which is against the guidelines for creating an article. It should have content written by the creator, not pasted from other articles which already exist.U1Quattro (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"publicly introduced" is not relevant to this discussion, it has been announced and details have been released [9], there is no rule saying that a car has to make an auto show debut in the metal before a page can be made. Your criticisms of the page are no longer valid as it has been improved significantly since it was submitted. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being poorly written - which it's not as it's currently a simple short article - is not a reason for deletion but improvement. It took only a few seconds to find a ton of very in-depth significant coverage from multiple reliable sources in multiple countries with at least one source calling this car "the most powerful V8 ever made." [10][11][12][13] And those are just a fraction of what I've found. Obviously WP:BEFORE wasn't adhered to. Oakshade (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ The car is not introduced yet so it is unclear what it's engine code is, what transmission it uses and whether it was designed by the Ferrari styling house or not. The article is clearly copy-paste material from the Ferrari 488 page. The sources which claim that it has "the most powerful V8 engine" are based on manufacturer claims which is not an independent verified source. The car is not even publicly unveiled yet. U1Quattro (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're the nominator, you can't vote again... GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U1Quattro, it appears you've misunderstood WP's notability guidelines and in particular GNG. It doesn't matter if the car hasn't been "introduced" yet (strangely you've referenced "manufacturer's claims" which contradicts the "car is not introduced" claim). It could be a forthcoming release or even a concept car and still pass GNG. And it doesn't matter if your original research opinion is that reliable sources are incorrect, it's that the multiple reliable sources gave in-depth coverage to this topic is what matters. Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Earwig's Copyvio Detector is displaying a 0.0% confidence rate (results) of copyvio existing in the present state of the article (link). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes GNG: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course for a new car of this kind, Wikipedia need an article. Bretwa (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a new car, essentially the successor to the 488. It needs an article, and as such should not be deleted. Frontzie (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been significantly improved since it was first nominated for deletion, so it no longer fits the criteria for deletion. Syntaxlord (talk) 01:09, 7 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) 11:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams on Frames[edit]

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

Non-notable production company, with almost no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. Completely fails to establish any kind of general or organisational notability. ——SerialNumber54129 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC) ——SerialNumber54129 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH, with only one film listed it looks like a new company and new article but it has actually been around since 2010 Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cancún nightclub shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. There is very little coverage in reliable sources of this event, and no indication that there will be any lasting significance. This topic may be better suited to WikiNews. Bradv🍁 14:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because it was reported by several mainstream British & American media sources. That it wasn't reported more extensively is probably due to the fact that mass shootings have become more common in Mexico in the early 21st century. Jim Michael (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you kidding me? This article is one sentence. Wikipedia is not news. Trillfendi (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a major event in the Mexican Drug War. This is a common event, even in Cancún where violence has been rising since last year. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I have to mention that low death-toll is not the issue. Low death-tolls are fine as long as notably is established. None of this has been proven here. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article should name actual bar - "La Kuka".... In my BEFORE I don't see any coverage from the past week, which would seem to indicate that this is a single newscycle news item - and hence not likely to see SUSTAINED coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of coverage beyond initial news reports, with no prejudice against re-creation of article if, going forward, sources emerge to demonstrate notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Virtually no coverage past the initial reaction. WP:NOTNEWS. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:46, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Shiina[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. An attempt has been made to demonstrate notability by bombarding the article with references, all of which are either trivial or from non-reliable sources. Article was deleted in AFD in 2011, then re-nominated in 2014, gaining no consensus. In both discussions it was apparent that canvassing was happening. Main author has been permanently blocked for sock puppetting. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: To me it seems like the general notability guidelines are not met. Judo itself doesn't seem to have a consensus of notability criteria up (yet), but comparing it to kickboxing and mixxed martial arts, he doesn't seem to pass. Mr. Shiina has neither fought any major / notable tournament nor do we have any reliable third party sources... the article itself actually doesn't look too bad. And from what I saw on the talk page you actually spent some time improving it, Catfish. How come you're now nominating? Just ended up deciding it's not enough for GNG? In either case - Mr. Shiina seems to be a competent and qualified person, but passes neither general GNG nor general sports notability. The issue to me seem to be the (non-available) third party sources.--Ruhri Jörg 15:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a fair bit of work on it to try to help a new editor, but ultimately there is nothing out there on him other than trivial mentions. I'm nominating the article now because it popped up in my watched pages today... that's all. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not even have a page on Japanese Wikipedia which shows that he is not even notable in Japan. If someone born in Japan since 1937 does not even have an article on ja.wiki then his right to exist on en.wiki is questionable. --Ernesztina (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Passing mentions are not enough to show notability and he doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Nothing has really changed from the previous discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:55, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Educo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. The only alive source that isn't run-of-the-mill is the Irish Times one, and that is a "What's going on" piece which dedicates a short paragraph to advertise an event Educo were doing. Nothing in-depth. Opting for AFD over PROD due to previous deletions. SITH (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely a mention in the main quality Irish media (Irish Times [19]) or Irish Independent [20]); and they are from 2009. Fails NORG. Britishfinance (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Britishfinance. Available sources (in the article and elsewhere) do not meet thresholds expected by WP:SIGCOV or WP:NCORP. COI/SPA overtones also a concern. Guliolopez (talk) 16:43, 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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW as it is already evident that there is no support for the nomination. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Group[edit]

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

A classic case of not only WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. In six months w, when the dust has settled, (I'm an optimist) it might be possible to know whether this group- (which does not at present seem to be gaining much more support...) is anytging more than yet another small speck on the whirling cesspool of UK politics, which is certainly not the anarchy in the UK that John Lydon (pbuh) wanted. TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The organization is already clearly notable - as is the event (the split from Labour). Even if this will be a short-lived group (not worthwhile covering separately from the event or a successor/merged entity) the event would pass NEVENT anyway. Seeing we have a huge amount of INDEPTH sources for this (as well as 11 seats in parliament) - this passes NORG and NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Icewhizz. A very brave nomination. The group has received sustained, persistent coverage in a plethora of reliable sources. Has already passed NNEWS, clearlly passes WP:ORGDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has a lot of coverage, it's about snecking Brexodus. See WP:NOTNEWS, please. As many political commentators have written or said, (for instance Jonathan Friedman in Saturday's Guardian) it is simply {{WP:TOOSOON]] to know whether this will be anything more than a footnote in history. And re-read WP:TOSOON TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating how it passes GNG. Better get that sou'wester on :D ——SerialNumber54129 12:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep This clearly passes the GNG. There is a lot of of in-depth coverage of this group, and there will continue to be even if it ceases to exist. If it ceases to grow, it still meets notability criteria. I don't see why WP:TOOSOON is being invoked given the sheer volume of independent reliable source coverage? Ralbegen (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep huge amounts of reliable sources. Even if it shut down overnight (which seems unlikely at the minute) then it would still be notable enough for an article of its own. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more coverage than could be included. Meets GNG. There's a possible doubt over whether it will be sustained coverage, but it would be strange not to have an article on this group, even if all coverage were to stop immediatlely. (And NOTNEWS states "Editors are encouraged to [...] develop stand-alone articles on significant current events"; individual resignations probably wouldn't merit an article, but >10 MPs resigning to form/join a new group is a significant event.) EddieHugh (talk) 13:03, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powerboat training nz[edit]

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

Source searches ("pbtnz" 1, "Powerboat+training+nz" 2) turn up little coverage of the depth sufficient for organisations and mainly affiliated sources. This appears to fail notability standards for organisations. SITH (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find nothing to improve its notability. Wikipedia is not the WP:YELLOWPAGES and as above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete - It could be the generic title, but I was unable to find sources indicating the subject meets WP:NCORP; one mention in passing is not enough, so delete.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. Reddragon7 (talk) 05:13, 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 speedy delete per WP:A7. So Why 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai College of Hotel Management and catering technology[edit]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Iamzine13: Please state a reason for deletion and complete the nom; despite the lack of reason though, the article is terribly poor and doesn't convey much of anything. Nate • (chatter) 14:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mrschimpf: this article does not meet to WP:GNG it does not have citations, Reliable, Independent Sources thats the reason I nominate this for WP:AFD I Know I should have gone for WP:A7 But if I have made mistake doing this please correct. -- MrZINE 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're fine; I don't see any mistakes outside the rationale and forgetting to post to the daily log, so I have nothing to correct here, and your rationale is perfectly valid. Thank you for responding. Nate • (chatter) 14:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page was previously created, and nominated for speedy deletion as G11 and A7, and deleted, and re-created. It could be tagged for CSD again, but we are here, so it can be deleted as no credible claim of significance, which is a lack of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 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) 11:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael T. Ross[edit]

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

This is difficult. There is without doubt a musician of this name who has played with a number of musical acts that pass the usual criteria for inclusion as Wikipedia articles. Having done WP:BEFORE, the same time Mr Ross himself appears not to meet WP:ANYBIO or other criteria for a stand-alone biography of a living person. At times in this article's history it has been redirected to those bands. In my opinion, while WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion would be the better option than speedy deletion.
Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We see this kind of thing occasionally -- a journeyman musician who has made a living as a trustworthy sideman for more notable stars while never quite achieving notability himself. Reliable sources found during a search almost always simply list him as present on an album or concert, but there is nothing about him specifically and he remains two or three degrees of separation away from independent notability. And since he has never been a fulltime member of any band during their biggest works, there is no viable place to redirect. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:05, 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 Withdrawn, no need to prolong this. Fram (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Party piece[edit]

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

A WP:DICDEF (with the second part, about the "specialism", not even supported by the source given) with an utterly random (but 100% white British males) selection of examples does not an encyclopedia article make. Fram (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated within 46 minutes of creation when it is clearly still under construction. You should allow more time or prod instead. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Topic is notable - e.g. book on what seems to be the topic + sources presently in the article. Article seems to be evolving past a mere DICTDEF. Should not have entered mainspace in the state that it entered (keep it in draft, sandbox, whatever - put into mainspace when it passes NOT / notability in terms of sources). Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Topic may be notable, but article is extremely weak. Wrong definition (as said in my opening statement), a section on "origins" that just gives older examples, nothing actually about the origin. A "list of party pieces", which this seems to be, would be endless. An actual discussion of the function, origin, sociology of party pieces seems to be totally lacking and not really what the creator had in mind. Moving it to draft until it is somewhat ready for mainspace is an acceptable option. Fram (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is not incorrect. I say "It is usually the specialism of the performer" and Collins support that by saying "Someone's party piece is something that they often do to entertain people, especially at parties, for example singing a particular song or saying a particular poem." In other words it is their specialism. The examples further support that point, a poet performing his poem, a school teacher of physics reciting pi etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG and the subject has received detailed treatment in scholarly sources. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, checked and meets general notability guideline (GNG). There is book on the topic too.Whispyhistory (talk) 11:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been considerably expanded since being nominated. It is far than a mere dictionary definition, and there are numerous good references. Easily passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevant for cultural history, and sourced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema: Journal of Philosophy and the Moving Image[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases (WoS is not a database, but an access platform, the journal is in WoS because it is included in the not-very-selective Emerging Sources Citation Index, which also contains some predatory journals). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search for the portuguese name only returns hits about their creators. Regards, Comte0 (talk)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W. Joe Hoppe[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BLP with no RS THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Couldn't find any other sources either. --Ruhri Jörg 15:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. As shown below, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and all of the participants have !voted to keep. (non-admin closure) SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 16:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Steckholzer[edit]

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

Fails GNG and unsourced BLP THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:ARTIST, works held by a number of museums/galleries (Saatchi Gallery, Museion, Österreichische Galerie Belvedere), article shows this. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big waste of time. Nominator should read WP:ARTIST, especially where it says that being in several permanent collections makes someone notable. The article is only about three or four sentences, one of which talks about her inclusion in permanent collections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST 4(d). ImmortalWizard this is going to become a snowball, you might consider withdrawing, to save the time of the other editors from piling on.--Theredproject (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal by nominator per comments above. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:30, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ninnu thalachi[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM or WP:NFF. The creator appears to have a conflict of interest. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, G11, gaming AFC on Draft:Ninnu Thalachi, sockpuppetry, take your pick. Cabayi (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not even exist in the Telugu language so it is not even notable there. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - significant reliable sources are not available. Reddragon7 (talk) 05:20, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picnicking Through Purgatory (And Other Things to Do at Night)[edit]

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

Undersourced and fails WP:NFILM. Sheldybett (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with Nom. Rogermx (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example no external reviews at IMDb and no entry at Rotten Tomatoes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 05:23, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rewards Network[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, lack of significant independent coverage in RS. Refs are all primary, or press-release/directory type listings. MB 02:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nomination. Bukharin (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOT - promotional, product lists, advertising. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Promotional article with no significant independent coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 22:40, 5 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. Nobody has challenged Aoziwe's sources to suggest notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Croker[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. The only source given is a dead link to a primary source (an interview). Searching only turns up other primary sources. Insufficient in-depth coverage in secondary sources. MB 04:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do not have enough RS and IS to claimed WP:NCORP notability to merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have updated and increased the references that now range from national newspapers, The Land, to national radio, ABC Radio National. Is it not incumbent upon a nominator for deletion and those expressing an opinion to delete to look to improve references before and during an AfD? Castlemate (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Castlemate Thank you for adding the source, but - is a interview piece from radio station (info from subject not independent and reliable), is a blurb and I dont think the source is a major newspaper . Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further and last comment I referenced the article because it was required and made a comment with out saying Keep or Delete so don’t turn your lazy AfD into an attack on me. I didn’t offer an opinion on purpose so as to avoid contact with editors such as yourself who see themselves as the source of all knowledge and wisdom and like to trash iconic national media entitities. If ABC Radio National is not an independenT source then I soppose The Land as a major National rural newspaper isn’t independent either and so no source will ever suit you. Just sit back and let the debate flow rather that bullying those who wish to help without dogma. Please don’t respond or mention my name again. Castlemate (talk) 08:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interview piece is considered not independent as the info is taken from the subject. There is no attack of any sort of my comments. I just respond to the source type provided. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following a just some of the indendent reliable sources I very easily found. All have some form of editorial overview, and range from secondary industry sources to professional organisations to sporting bodies to general media outlets.

Rowing Australia
The Land
coastbeat
ABC Radio
Dynamic Business
Engineers Australia
Manning River Times
Composites Australia

They demonstrate sustained, reliable, and independent coverage allowing a more in-depth article to be written. Article should be renamed to Croker Oars however. Aoziwe (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aoziwe Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being one of the two major manufacturers of competition rowing oars worldwide is a clear assertion of notability. Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:19, 7 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. A merge consensus can be sought on the talk page. No support for deletion. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.I. (Sex Pistols song)[edit]

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

No claim of significant coverage which would lean towards failing WP:NMUSIC. Sheldybett (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough for a separate article: Delete or redirect to album. —teb728 t c 07:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. It was never a single, but it's one of the album's best-known tracks, so it's quite possible someone will use it as a search term, even though it doesn't have enough content for a stand-alone article. Richard3120 (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC) Struck previous vote as article has gained some sources since then – see my comment below. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols per above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find detailed coverage where the track was recorded and rerecorded, an explanation of the lyrics, &c. It's one of the 50 Songs That Changed the 20th Century and so clearly has a distinct identity. Andrew D. (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: you are incorrect in your assertion that it was one of the "50 songs that changed the 20th century"... the Sex Pistols song included in that book is "God Save the Queen", not "E.M.I.". The other two sources you cite discuss the song within the context of the album, and have information about every song the Sex Pistols ever recorded... by your logic, every Sex Pistols song should have its own article, despite the fact they will all be stubs apart from the singles. It's far better to include this brief information in the album article, in my opinion, where information about the album's recording can be gathered in one place, rather than split over 11 articles. Richard3120 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the 25 Albums that Rocked the World source has information on every song on Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols, which I gather does not quite encompass every song they ever recorded. The book gives some songs (e.g. Problem, Liar) less than half a page, but devotes more than a page to E.M.I..

Further, I don't think it's a priori absurd to entertain the idea that every song on an album might be notable, provided we're talking about an exceptionally influential album. For example, it seems there are articles for every song on A Hard Day's Night and Help!. Colin M (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former disc jockey, this is an important song. It was possibly the most popular Sex Pistols song on College Radio in the 1980s, later eclipsed by My Way after the release of the movie Goodfellas. I’m still in the process of bulking up the page, but as you can see, it is already important enough not to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fielding99 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is added two primary sources (the Pistols' own web site and the record label's site of the re-release), a live review which mentions the song in passing, and a Rolling Stone article which, again, talks about the song in the context of the album as a whole, plus an unsubstantiated assertion that "this was the most popular song on college radio in the US". Richard3120 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current sourcing is a bit thin, but I'm convinced there's enough coverage out there to establish notability. The first source turned up by Andrew D. above (25 Albums that Rocked the World) has some especially good detail. Colin M (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: Again... it talks about the song within the context of the album. If, as should correctly happen, the album article is expanded with details of the recording of each track, does that mean we should duplicate this information across 11 separate song articles as well? And being "convinced there's enough coverage out there" isn't good enough – you have to prove that, not just think it. Richard3120 (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: If, as should correctly happen, the album article is expanded with details of the recording of each track... this is an interesting idea. If you believe this is the correct way forward, may I ask why you voted 'Redirect' rather than 'Merge'? I didn't consider this as an option because I've never seen an album article structured in this way, and it's not clear to me how it would be accomplished logistically. Would you integrate this detail into the Track listing section? It doesn't seem compatible with the {{tracklist}} template used there and in most album articles. Would you replace the Track listing section with a new section having subsections for each song? Would you instead add a new section in addition to the Track listing section? If you can point to an article that has accomplished something like this successfully, or you have a good faith proposal as to how the formatting and organization should be done, I'd certainly consider changing my vote to 'Merge'.

And being "convinced there's enough coverage out there" isn't good enough Sorry, I should have perhaps been more forceful in my wording. I'm convinced that the existing sources listed in the article combined with the ones turned up by Andrew D. constitute enough coverage to establish notability. Colin M (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: I voted "redirect" because at the time, this was the version of the article that existed... as you can see, it was completely unsourced. Yes, I should probably change my vote to "merge" now. I'm still not convinced there is enough to warrant a separate article – the second paragraph in the current version of the article is a quote from John Lydon, and actually only the second and third sentences (both very short) are directly relevant to the song... the rest of the quote is talking about his views of the record label (I know the song is about the label, but talking about T-shirts doesn't seem particularly relevant to the song, in my opinion, and per WP:QUOTEFARM lengthy quotes shouldn't be included in articles). The 25 Albums that Rocked the World book really only has two sentences about the recording – the rest of it is the author's personal opinion of the song's merits. I know there are albums (usually Beatles albums) where every song has its own article, but they usually have more detail than this article... I'm just worried that once you take out the primary sources and the lengthy quote from Lydon, the article will probably be half a dozen lines long.

I wouldn't incorporate it into the track listing, no – most albums that are GA or near-GA status do include separate sections on "Recording" and "Writing and composition" or "Songs", or headings to that effect. So you could include the information across one or both of those sections. Never Mind the Bollocks is an album high up on my "to do" list when I get the time. Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article to include the new sources found by Andrew D, removed the primary sources and trimmed the overlong quote from Lydon. I still believe that this article is too short to warrant a separate article and would be best to merge with Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Richard3120 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - truly a cult classic of there ever was one. I would not object to a merger. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that just a WP:ILIKEIT argument, or maybe WP:FAME? Calling it a "cult classic" is pretty subjective. Richard3120 (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Songs need independent, reliable sources. A couple books about rock aren’t enough. Merging with the album is the only logical thing here. Trillfendi (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Could you elaborate on your reasoning? Are you saying books about rock are not reliable sources? Or do you have a reason to think that the particular books about rock cited in this discussion and in the article aren't reliable? Or are you saying they are reliable, but that "a couple" reliable sources isn't enough? Colin M (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. For example, The Independent describes E.M.I. as "[ranking] alongside Graham Parker's "Mercury Poisoning" as the most gleeful rant at a record company ever recorded."[21] Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 8 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Yannick Iwuegbu[edit]

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

No independent coverage in RS, all cited sources are either less-than-RS, interviews, or trivial coverage (I wasn't able to find anything better online). The article claims two awards won; the first is not actually mentioned in the source provided, and the second is not an award for Iwuegbu–rather, a film Iwuegbu allegedly acted in won awards (but not Iwuegbu himself). Additionally, it's unclear if either of these awards meets WP:ANYBIO status, even if Iwuegbu had actually received them. Does not meet WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article are primarily interviews and not indepedent of him. None of this albums or EP have been discussed in reliable publication. He has not won or been nominated for any major Nigerian awards, i.e The Headies or Nigeria Entertainment Awards. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see some reliable sources in the references like Vanguard, Tribune and Sun newspaper. A google search also indicate coverage from Nation Newspaper. Skimming through the article, the subject clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO as they have neither charted nor won any major award, but they might probably scape through WP:BASIC. Would change to delete if I am unsuccessful at sourcing reliable references.Mahveotm (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 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 no consensus. Not enough people seem to care whether the article is deleted or not. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Change TV[edit]

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

Previously PRODed. Appears to be a defunct campaign rather than a notable organisation. Only one independent reliable source has survived in the external links. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 03:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added archival links, so the reference section is a little more complete now. There is in-depth coverage about the campaign by reliable sources including The Globe and Mail, a leading newspaper in Canada. The coverage doesn't mention "Help! Change TV" by name, but is clearly about the controversy about Neilsen's sample. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ok well if the source you have added speaks about the general issue without mentioning this campaign by name I think if anything that shows that it was not notable rather than supporting its notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: let's look at the sources:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Help Change TV	WP:SPS	Not for establishing notability.	By virtue of WP:SPS.	✘ No
[22]	WP:SPS	Not for establishing notability.	Ditto, but also, it's just commenting on a NYT blog.	✘ No
[23]	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
[24]	Doesn't appear affiliated.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Press release.	✘ No
[25]	Doesn't appear affiliated.	Blog.	Doesn't mention the organisation at all.	✘ No
[26]	Affiliated link dump.	~ N/A, it's just a link dump.	See above.	✘ No
[27]			Mentions the cause of the organisation, but doesn't appear to cover them in any depth. It isn't about them and at a skim-read, I can't even see them mentioned.	✘ No
[28]	No immediate red flags.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	It's just reporting on what the CEO is saying - basically a press release.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Overall I'm unconvinced WP:CORPDEPTH is satisfied here. SITH (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Weitsman[edit]

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

~~Local businessman. The references appear either trivial, or PR.. DGG ( talk ) 10:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All sources used are from reputable news outlets and do not include press releases or primary sources. Subject has been covered by both local and national news outlets (NYT, architectural digest, ESPN).Deadbolt44 (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated page to address and remove sources that appear PR, made minor restructuring edits and line edits.Deadbolt44 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very well-known philanthropist in Upstate New York. His collection of stoneware is in a major, permanent gallery named in his honor at the New York State Museum. He single-handedly rediscovered stoneware as a folk art form. Sorry to disagree with you, DGG. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian,If you can add material about the importance of the collecting, and RSs to show that folk art historians consider that his work on stoneware is a major contribution, I'll withdraw the AfD DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have time until Saturday morning to work on this. Sorry! Bearian (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. AfDwithdrawn--Ihave cofidence in Berian DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 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 delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Kane[edit]

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

This biography seems to fail WP:NBIO and WP:PROF. Citations to her works are in single digit, no indication of significant impact on the field, major awards or other forms of recognition. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the remotest chance of passing any category of WP:Prof. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I could find nothing to help get the page past WP:Prof. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' editor of what appears to be a reasonably authoritative publication in her field, lectured internationally, also published. I think she can claim WP:Prof. NealeFamily (talk) 09:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can a publication with only 6 citations on Google scholar (including 2 self-citations) be described as reasonably authoritative? Hardly anybody has mentioned it. Xxanthippe (talk).
Hi, NealeFamily. "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". The "Average Professor Test: When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" WP:Prof. What evidence do we have of this? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
The subject is one of four editors of that journal, and nearly all academics have published, and most have lectured internationally (I've done the last two and I'm not even an academic). The standards of WP:PROF are higher than this. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, Journal of Textile Design Research and Practice does not have an article (suggesting it is not notable). Not that it matters, but as a 2013 new journal it is doubtful to have had much impact, or be indexed much, so no, it is very unlikely she is an editor of a "reasonably authoritative publication in her field". Instead she is almost certainly an editor of a very new and not well known, authoritative or impactful publication in her field. In 10 more years this can change, like all the other parts of her bio which are now WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete low citiation shows does not meet academic note number 1. Not all journals are major, impactful ones that give notability to editors-in-chief.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as with most professors the article clearly passes WP:PROF which means it does not need to pass WP:GNG despite dubious notability with fewer than 10 sources. Sheldybett (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which category of WP:Prof does it pass? I can't see any. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She only has a phD and is not a Professor hence the article fails the WP:PROF criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. She has made no outstanding breakthroughs in the field of textile and only published non-notable textbooks. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the perfectly clear policy- and guideline-based consensus that was formed before this was relisted. I thought this was supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, but it seems that any opinion that doesn't have "keep" or "delete" in bold before it is discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Publications really amount to 3 chapters/sections in books. Per User:Phil Bridger et all. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 22:10, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-2[edit]

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

Reason Intergalactic Tomato (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC) No inherent notability per WP:NGEO[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is about a populated place. A sitio is apparently a legal subdivision of a barangay. A purok is a subdivision of a sitio. I don't know what level of districts these are comparable to for other nations, such as for India. Seems like a sitio is a legal neighborhood. We do allow articles on neighborhoods, especially legally defined ones. I'm not sure how far down these should be automatically accepted. However, about naming, perhaps there should be consistent practice using commas or parentheses, e.g. Sabang, Cabayugan is the Wikipedia article name for a sitio in the barangay of Cabayugan. There is a category of sitios and puroks in the Philippines. --Doncram (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps redirect to Canlubang instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whooping Millennial (talk • contribs) 09:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets notability requirements (per Doncram), no argument advanced for deletion or redirection. I would close this as speedy keep, but the rule is The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance any argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected and Whooping Millennial also recommended ~~deletion~~ redirection --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Weak nomination. Verifiably exists. At worst, redirect to Canlubang. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It has been a topic of debate for years already in Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. Check Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Archive15#Barangay_notability as a reference. Usual decision was to redirect and merge with their higher administrative division. Since an article for Canlubang already exists, it could be redirected and merged there. --Hiwilms (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:36, 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 redirect to University of Colorado Boulder#Residence halls. There's reasonably good consensus here that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. It would be defensible to close this as delete, but WP:ATD argues for the redirect suggested herein. If anybody wants to spin this back out as a distinct article/list, I would suggest starting a discussion about that on Talk:University of Colorado Boulder and seeing if you can build consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Colorado Boulder student housing[edit]

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

An entire article that has been around for six years regarding unextraordinary dorms at UC-Boulder; we're not talking about The Lawn here. Fails WP:GNG. Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable buildings, almost entirely cited to the university website. Listing these facilities (especially as a standalone article) is WP:UNDUE. Fails WP;GNG. Sionk (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Content to University of Colorado Boulder. ML^talk 07:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Not notable. WP:ROTM Acnetj (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if we assume that all buildings on a notable college's campus inherit some notability, there are almost no mentions of any unit of student housing that are in sources independent of the college itself. The only sources that are reasonably independent are routine mentions with no depth. Fails WP:GNG. Gargleafg (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simplistic reason is that Category:University of Colorado Boulder residence halls exists and has multiple articles, and by wp:CLNT it is justified to have a list-article covering the articles in the category.

A more reasonable reason is that having a list-article heads off creation of separate articles for the individual buildings. Short articles like current Cheyenne Arapaho Hall and Kittredge West Hall can be merged to this list-article instead.

However the list-article could be renamed and broadened, perhaps, to cover all list-item-notable buildings on the campus. For most U.S. universities of this size and status (e.g. as one of the top state universities in the state), there is a list-article of its buildings. It is reasonable to split out such a list from the article about the university. Merging to the university article would put undue coverage there.

See Category:University of Colorado Boulder campus and Category:University and college dormitories in the United States. I happen to prefer broader list-articles covering more types of university buildings, but there are lots of list-articles about dormitories alone, e.g. List of Harvard College freshman dormitories. --Doncram (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that University_of_Colorado_Boulder#Residence_halls is a section which exists. There is no way this article should be deleted outright; it would be better to redirect to there, as a valid wp:ATD. However i think it would better be kept and revised/expanded to cover other notable buildings on campus, such as others mentioned at University_of_Colorado_Boulder#Campus. --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 19 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) 00:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a student housing brochure. Wikipedia is not the mirror site for CU Boulder's residential housing website. If someone wants to add independently sourced information about significant structures, the university article is easily found, and if a reader can manage to type as far as "University of Colorado Boulder" then they will be able to find that article without this title as a redirect. Bakazaka (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Colorado Boulder#Residence halls. It breaks my heart, but I think following WP guidelines it's the way to go until more sources can be produced. - Scarpy (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOG. --Hiwilms (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split article from the notable article University of Colorado Boulder to prevent its size becoming problematic, there is no need for independent notability for such a split, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 7 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard B. Gist Jr.[edit]

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

Another Billy Hathorn special. Local city attorney (not enough to meet WP:NPOL) who fails WP:GNG. Sources listed are: 1) A list of past presidents of the Louisiana Bar Association; 2) A link to his mother's family tree on Genealogy.com; 3) a book on Louisiana history; 4) his obit in a local newspaper; 5) a link simply proving he was a member of a fraternity; 6) a link simply proving he served on the USS West Virginia; 7) a memorial page on Genealogy.com for his law partner; 8) his secretary's obit; 9) a link proving that a local bank that he served as the chairman of the board for existed at one time; 10) his obit in another newspaper; 11) a permanent dead link that appeared to be related to his wife; and 12) his son's profile on lawyercentral.com, which is a site that simply sites the basic information of law practices. None of these references establish any sort of notability. GPL93 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he was a state bar president, see User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_attorneys. Really, he had no other major accomplishments; many lawyers have experience in local government, so being city attorney does not make him notable. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a state bar president could get him into Wikipedia if he could be sourced well enough to clear WP:GNG for it, but is not a free notability pass just because the fact technically verifies on the bar association's own self-published website. And the rest of the references here are mostly primary sourcing, except for his routine death notices and a book that cites just one page. This does not suggest that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. I was sympathetic to the arguments that this clears WP:NLAWYER, but we can't get enough WP:RS to justify inclusion. Anyone is welcome to transwiki to Conservapedia if they want. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although reading articles like this one, decades of devoted to public service, respected professional, make me wonder about our standards. (I mean, one good sex or bribery scandal and he's be notable.) Well-conducted lives of useful work as a well-regarded professional ≠ notability on Wikipedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Abomination[edit]

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

This demo album fails WP:NALBUM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find enough independent reliable sources after a WP:BEFORE to show subject meets WP:NALBUM. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Concur with CASSIOPEIA. Unreferenced and non-notable. - JGabbard (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Self released album with nothing to show it's notable and no significant coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 22:33, 5 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. Given the history, I'm going to salt this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Psi Chi Swordsmen[edit]

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

Organization without a substantiated claim of notability. Sourced only to self-published material, and my attempt at WP:BEFORE revealed nothing that is a reliable source. Created at this location by a single-purpose editor to circumvent the protection due to repeated creation at Delta Psi Chi. Kinu ^t/_c 16:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 18:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This fraternity doesn't seem to have attracted any media attention whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is just a continuation of a salted page, no independent coverage. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:05, 5 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larri Passos[edit]

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

Notability concerns since 2010. Outdated info, subject of recent vandalism and seems very self-promotional Equine-man (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tennis coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not seeing the coverage needed to meet the GNG. There's no evidence he ever coached the "lesser known Roger Federer" (which I removed from the article). Sandals1 (talk) 23:37, 5 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/withdrawn after dab expansion-- JHunterJ (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Pope (disambiguation)[edit]

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

With so few entries I suggest we can delete this, and put a hatnote to Anton LeVoy on the Black Pope article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant put a hatnote to "Anton LaVey" on the article "Superior General of the Society of Jesus", which is where "Black Pope" currently redirects to. PatGallacher (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was last involved 'many years ago' so 'whatever suits people.' Jackiespeel (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page only lists two articles. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page now lists six different terms that it can apply to. MarkZusab (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a valid DAB now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added and deleted a few entries, but seven is more than enough to justify a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Lucifero4
Comment As nominator of this article, I now withdraw my nomination. This isn't that unusual, sometimes nominating an article for deletion can lead to it being improved enough to make it worth keeping. PatGallacher (talk) 22:12, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

California Redemption[edit]

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

This is admittedly, a difficult one to do WP:BEFORE on as the name is far too similar to California Redemption Value but based on the sources in this article, I don't see any evidence that they've ever met WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. What little coverage they have is local, they were never signed to a major label as far as I can tell and the reviews included here aren't from major outlets. As an example, earcandymag is a two sentence blurb and I'm honestly not convinced that this is a significant source for anything, let alone this. The rest are fanzines, blogs, forums or otherwise not sources which would establish notability. Praxidicae (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails criteria for WP:BAND. Not notable (no competitions, major label releases, members not independently notable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actaudio (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altitude 25[edit]

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

Unremarkable residential building, fails WP:NBUILD. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Pontificalibus 11:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some coverage of the building - [29][30][31][32][33][34]. Not sure if these are sufficient or strong enough sources, but there may be more. Hzh (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of them discuss the building in detail except maybe [35] which is mundane local coverage. [36] seems to be a press quote from the developer. The worldarchitecturenews.com site is not an indepenent source, as it invites people to "submit projects and press releases for consideration". --Pontificalibus 19:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not leaning one way or the other at the moment to keep or delete. However, I do remember there was some coverage of the building in other non-local publications, the problem is finding them since those may not have been archived online. At the moment it is note-worthy as the second tallest building in Croydon, although there are a number of buildings being built/planned that will be taller. Hzh (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All news sources invite submissions and press releases. There is enough for WP:GNG including the critical piece about the balconies which is obviously independent coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:16, 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) 14:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Arianna Natsya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. Although has played in a WT20I match after 1 July 2018 (per #4), this was not World T20 or Global Qualifier event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

As this cricketer is playing in 2019 ICC Women's Qualifier Asia, which is regional qualifying tournament for the next Women's 50 over World Cup qualifier well as Women's T20 World Cup qualifier, I feel this page should stay. For players playing the matches that are being played under the tournaments which are ramifications from the World T20 tournaments, creation of separate Wikipedia Page can be considered.

Best Regards, Vikram Maingi (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Objectively fails WP:NCRIC and I can't find any non-statistical sources about her so almost definitely fails WP:GNG. TripleRoryFan (talk) 23:03, 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} 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears to scrape into notability per WP:NCRIC by virtue of an international cap but lacking in coverage. W C M_email 11:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't meet WP:NCRIC. Although they have an international cap, it's not in the main ICC final tournaments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has no page on Malay Wikipedia hence she is not notable in Malaysia. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:20, 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. I don't like deleting an article on such thin discussion, but I don't see anything here that would justify keeping it. If somebody wants to take a shot at researching sources and writing a better article, ping me and I'll be happy to restore this to draft space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Accounting Technicians Australia[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 07:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 09:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per nom. Legion X (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are a lot of very reliable mentions to be found, ie, from other professional bodies, government departments, and major educational institutions. However, it would be difficult to write an in-depth article, although from what I saw the current article could be improved from the current micro stub. Aoziwe (talk) 07:37, 5 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 Dixie Carter (wrestling)#Dixieland (2013–2014). I've reviewed the relevant SNG and there does not seem to be anything that contradicts the consensus here. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team Dixie[edit]

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

Short lived stable. Notability is not inherited (WP: INHERITED) by its members. Fails WP: N. StaticVapor message me! 06:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think the length is so much of an issue. They did run for more than a year; and had a prominant spot on the card during that time (which should imply sourcing). I'll abstain from voting either way, unless someone comes up with a good argument, because how WP:INHERITED fits in with stables has always confused me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability whatsoever; the only thing notable about it is the group's members and their individual success. All of this information can fit in the member's articles seperately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.148.156 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A one year-old stable and you want its article deleted? They've been in the main event once, so that's saying something.111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dixie Carter (wrestling)#Dixieland (2013–2014), as WP:ATD-R. I'm not sure if there's anything there that's worth merging (though wouldn't object to it either), but at the very least this is a plausible search term that could act as a useful redirect. Lowercaserho (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dixie Carter (wrestling), just like The Miztourage is redirected to The Miz and The Riott Squad to Ruby Riott. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 11:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dixie Carter (wrestling) per above, the faction was defined and lead by one person and isn't independently notable. Pinguinn 🐧 09:44, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Caseau[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:COI. Sources that mention the subject are mostly self-published and outdated. The independent sources listed make no mention of the subject or are unreliable as per WP:RSP. A simple search brings up nothing reliable that helps establish WP:GNG. Limmidy (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Notability is not inherited. Not from Eminem or family. The citations for alleged chart positions clog it up to make it “appear” he has in depth sources. Trillfendi (talk) 01:18, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dual pipelining[edit]

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

This article is a confused and completely erroneous WP:CONTENTFORK of superscalar processor. "Dual pipelining" is not a synonym for "superscalar processor", so this article shouldn't be redirected. 99Electrons (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. It seems there is no established usage of the expression to designate any particular technology in general or in the context of processor architectures in particular. Scientific articles mentioning "dual pipelining" do not use the expression to refer to any established topic but 1) use it to describe many different concepts ranging from image processing to biotechnology and 2) generally clarify its use in the context of the article. Bukharin (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources cited in the article use dual pipelining to refer to entirely different concepts, which are not all related with what the article claims the term to mean. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:39, 5 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. The "keep" !votes were adequately refuted, and then not challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glamour Puss Studios Tap Dancing Academy[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep True, there is very scant coverage. The current references, one dead, one does not even mention the subject unless "you know" who they are referring to, "you tube" does not count, one only names them. The Age references, however, should be highly reliable, and all but one, including one I added, are not trivial. There is some in depth coverage and it is sustained over a number of years, but with only several in total it is perhaps only just scraping over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject has significant coverage in reliable Australian sources such as The Age Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Generally, multiple works from the same publication are considered a single source when it comes to judging notability (see WP:GNG, bullet point 3), so the sources from The Age aren't enough on their own. Even if they were to be taken separately, [37] and [38] cannot be considered in-depth sources. [39] is basically a local-flavor puff piece that's about 70% interview. [40] is more local flavor. Ironically, this one covering a lawsuit against the company is the most in-depth of the lot. In any case, without any significant, in-depth, independent coverage outside its area (or even outside one publication!) it badly flunks WP:AUD. There for sure isn't enough here for an WP:NCORP pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any case for WP:GNG is a contrived/technical case at best. Sources are very scant and there is no proper significant independent WP:RS. This is clearly not a significantly notable institution even in Australia. There is no long-term future for this article in WP, why try to construct a case for it to defer the inevitable? Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 7 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurio Design Lab[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, certainly not enough to meet WP:ORGCRITE (although as it stands I can't even find enough to meet WP:GNG). I'm not familiar with any of the awards the firm has won, but the volume of awards from the same two awards organizations doesn't bode well for them as indicators of notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Right now nothing more than a promotional brochure for the firm.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a marketing piece. Close to WP:A11. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 8 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thulasi Helen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOXING as well as WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.

The News-Minute (which allots the most-significant coverage to the subject) fails being a RS, comprehensively. So is Velivada, Youtube and Samvad Pravesh.

The TOI piece is a blog; which has no editorial oversight.

The piece over Hindu is paid-PR.

The Deccan chronicle piece just regurgitates her words.

There was a film about her but it is equally non-notable per the relevant guideline.

Some trivial (and sparse) routine coverage about her bouts are noted. ∯WBG^converse 13:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST .There is coverage about her in the regional language media particularly in the Tamil Language including the BBC which is biographical

BBC Tamil About her discuss her life
In Daily Thanthi about her and her life
Vikatan about her and
Times of India piece will pass WP:GNG have added references .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC regional services are a joke/RSN. The TOI piece is sheer fluff (and near-certainly, a PR-effort). As to the rest, regional sources covering a boxer from the state. Fails NBOXING squarely, as she is yet to achieve anything significant. ∯WBG^converse 10:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable amateur boxer. Does not meet WP:NBOX.PRehse (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is likely that significant coverage in independent sources particularly in the regional media particularly in the Tamil Language in addition to what is there in the article which includes the Daily Thanthi and Vikatan and her film has been screened worldwide as per this with reviews like this "The film’s strongest aspect is its intertwining of Thulasi’s personal and professional struggles, which at times mirror each other and trap Thulasi in a double bind, in a rather seamless way" and these in 1 and 2 in Norwegian language The subject passes WP:GNG even if she fails WP:NBOX.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, editors need to remember words from the lead of WP:NSPORT: "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, ...", so as we appear to accept that Helen does not meet WP:NBOX, the question remains, does she meet WP:GNG to warrant an article? just saying. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, with the news coverage in the article and the documentary about her. (That does not have to be notable in itself to constitute significant coverage, just as news articles don't need to be notable to be significant coverage.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:59, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NetBase Solutions[edit]

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

There seems to be some WP:REFBOMBing. The highest quality references here (e.g. Economist, Wall Street Journal) contain only the most incidental of mentions, others (e.g. San Jose Mercury News) have WP:ROUTINE coverage of hirings and promotions. All outlets which do contain more substantial mentions are those sources we have, typically, not considered creditable for purposes of establishing WP:N (e.g. business journals, Bloomberg company directory profiles etc.). Some sources are repeated multiple times under different names but are, in fact, the same source (e.g. " "Elsevier and NetBase Launch illumin8" credited both to something called Information Today and to something else called Newsbreak). A standard BEFORE finds a few dozens additional references, all of which are more incidental mentions, inclusion in analyst reports, or press releases. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article looks like it was part of the same PR campaign as some of the references, such as [41]. There's virtually nothing on recent activity. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Black (businessman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NOTINHERITED – the person does not seem to be notable independently from the company he started (Regatta) and virtually all listed sources mention his name only incidentally, in the context of Regatta. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm original author of the article. This is a difficult one, because the Black family clearly want to stay under the radar -- and have clearly gone to great lengths to reduce their media footprint and profile, but I do not think that reduces their notability. Figurehead and owner of Regatta, which is a high-profile fashion company in the UK; not inherited, but guidelines say "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" -- I would argue that founding one of the largest outdoor apparel brands (owns Craghoppers too) in the UK meets that criteria. He is on The Sunday Times Rich List -- wealth is not an indication of noteworthiness on its own, but a signal of public interest. Ultimately, he and the family are founders -- and continue to control / 95pc stake -- a significant company on the high street. Even if the family have gone to great lengths to minimize their presence, I think it meets notability. ScepticalChymist (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: ScepticalChymist (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 21:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 21:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTINHERITED, no evidence of independent notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina Sleibi[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. Article is simply two short sentences with no real content and nothing that seems notable. Link to singers website is dead, and her twitter account, which is currently active, only has 1335 followers. Internet search doesn't seem to bring up much either. Meszzy² (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very short stub, no photo, no mention of the songs she sung. Non-notable. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah this is a no-brainer. I don't understand why this page was created in the first place if it's going to be so short. Any knowledgeable user would know this would not pass notability. Horizonlove (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failure of WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddragon7 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 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. czar 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Akkoyun[edit]

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

Subject has not won one of the Big Four pageants to meet notability for pageant holders. She never went to Miss Universe after the Netherlands pageant. She lacks notability. Trillfendi (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable model. The article claims Deniz Akkoyun won Miss Nederland 2008, but Charlotte Labee's name is mentioned at Miss Nederland. Google search comes up with the same information. Legion X (talk) 19:36, 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.