Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 February	10 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Earth shelter. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earth house[edit]

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

Content now mostly merged into Earth shelter, at least those parts of the article which were suitable for the encyclopedia. Other alternative would be to merge more content to the Peter Vetsch article, or reduce this to an article which entirely focusses on his take on earth sheltering, and have it as a sub article of earth sheltering, in which case I will leave that for a future editor. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earth shelter as a wikireader search term. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earth shelter, merging the little content that's left on Vetsch's specific take on earth shelters into Peter Vetsch. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 09:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a Hamilton[edit]

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

As per WP:DICDEF, Not sure if it is included in the Urban dictionary, as both current references point to the non-RS blogspot, but that is irrelavent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DICDEF.CoronaryKea (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the above reasons, and because there are no reliable sources for this turn of phrase actually existing in notable discourse in the first instance. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I also can't find any RS demonstrating this is a real turn of phrase. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 09:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a definition that throws up RS beyond the reference given in the article. Not widely used. Britishfinance (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Omni Flames (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Champions (Paid in Full song)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG. User continues to rely on a website cited as unreliable. Any verifiable content can be incorporated into the Paid in Full (soundtrack), which nothing more than an introduction and a tracklisting. Ascribe4 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. Not opposed to merging but the main article should include information on other songs too if they are found to be worth mentioning. Џ 00:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the song may have only charted on the US Billboard Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart, but it has enough significant information about the song, not the album in the 'Background and composition' and 'Legacy' sections to pass WP:NSONG with this being the only chart position. --Kyle Peake (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:49, 9 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 The Way You Make Me Feel#Music video per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Thumbtzen[edit]

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

Only significant role was in one music video, all other roles are very minor. The notability seems to be inherited from Michael Jackson. Also, the article is suspected to be the subject of undeclared paid editing. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to The Way You Make Me Feel) - wildly off satisfying any of WP:NACTOR criteria. That said, clearly her most significant piece of acting is in this video, and it is also the only thing she is likely to be searched for in relation to on wikipedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a non-speaking role in a music video does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a personal homepage.CoronaryKea (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited. Rzvas (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Way You Make Me Feel#Music video, which is the only vaguely notable thing the article subject has played a significant role in, and is probably the only reason this article gets search hits -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 09:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for moment. An unusual case this. No real RS on newspaper sources (surprising for a media-related BLP). Loads of images but that is not acceptable on WP for notability. However, she does have a book where even though she is listed as a co-author, it was really written by Tonia Ryan. She also gets a whole chapter in this book Michael Jackson and Women: Chapter V Tatiana Thumbtzen. I can also see material magazines in which she appears (Ebony), as well as a lot of Michael Jackson books (I won't list them all here). I would like another re-list to check these and see if I can update her article. No point in having a "contrived" notability from odd sources, however, I'm not convinced this is a solid delete either. Britishfinance (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand why the Undisclosed Paid tag was added. There is nothing on the Talk Page and the article was created over a decade ago? Any "blocked editors" that I can see on the history were removing material. I can't see where the reason for applying the tag came from? Britishfinance (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A ghostwritten autobiography is not an independent reliable source and the Michael Jackson book sources are inherited notability from Michael Jackson and support her inclusion in the Michael Jackson article but not in a standalone article in my view, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She is given a long interview in Spike Lee's Bad 25 (film) 2012 film,[ she also gets a half-chapter in Joe Jackson's book about Michael which has material about her that does not appear in this article. Being the subject of a biography is also part of being notable, particularly when the main author also has their own WP article. I am not saying the case is a slam-dunk either way, but there are editors who have saved WP articles on AfD with far less material. Britishfinance (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Way You Make Me Feel#Music video. I do not see significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, or really much coverage at all, apart from her connection with Michael Jackson. The chapter in the book Michael Jackson and Women might be SIGCOV (I don't know as there's no preview online), but even if it is, it would not be sufficient by itself. She does not meet WP:ENT, as she has had only one significant performing role, and I can't find any evidence of her modelling work. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although the incident itself generated a certain amount of press solely due to being an incident involving a member of the royal family, there is a solid consensus that the event itself is too trivial to merit a separate article on this incident. I will move the content to a subpage of Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, so that information is available to be merged into Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as needed to present the historically significant information. bd2412 T 01:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender[edit]

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

This article has an additional section added entitled 'Surrender of driver licence' to the previous article 2019 Prince Philip road accident - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Prince Philip road accident. This probably removes it from WP:G4 consideration so a fresh AFD is needed. This is a procedural nomination on which I am not expressing view at this stage. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am British, and here in Britain, this sort of event affecting royalty IS VERY notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something is not notable simply because you say it is. All the coverage of this incident and it's aftermath is routine news reporting. Holotony (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still clearly WP:NOTNEWS, all the arguments from the previous AFD still applyHolotony (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous AfD. And isn't this an obvious re-creation? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS, and I don't see that the addition of one piece of very minor trivia (a 97-year-old has agreed to stop driving, probably on the orders of his wife - is that really so earth-shattering?) should be enough to stop this qualifying for WP:G4. And, in reply to Anthony, I too am British and I agree that this sort of royal event attracts lots of news coverage, but this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it was not only in newspapers but on foreign TV in January AND February. The article is not there to make fun of the guy. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being on TV news reports in many different countries, and even in two consecutive months, doesn't stop those being news reports, rather than the secondary sources on which we should base Wikipedia articles. And who said anything about making fun of the guy? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 as above. We had the discussion, people gave their view, the outcome was clear. This is a blatent attempt to try and circumvent the process by making a minor addition which changes nothing at all. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a long lasting effect, surrendering his licence to avoid prosecution. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That effect is only long lasting for Philip himself (if he lives for a long time), rather than for anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous AfD contains 3 good "keep" pleas. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete, rather than no consensus (if it were the latter, then the article would not have been deleted). Of the 3 keeps you mentioned, 1 of them was from the creator (a given), and another subsequently suggested a merge might be more appropriate. If following wikipedia policy, G4 covers this and it should be speedily deleted. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh. The latter is a complete hagiography at the moment and could probably do with a section on Controversies. CoronaryKea (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is already covered in enough depth at Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Retirement. If there is a WP:NPOV issue at Philip's article it should be addressed properly, rather than give undue prominence to this one incident by merging in such a large amount of content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the CPS decision on whether Philip will be prosecuted. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. CPS have announced they will not prosecute. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we buy into the "it's in the news so we must have an article on it" idea then surely the fact that this is being reported today (I heard it on BBC Radio 4 news earlier) means that this event has become even more notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we do, that's fair comment. I don't buy into that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I thought stories like these were for the tabloid papers?! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, maybe: [1], [2], [3], [4],[5], [6], [7], etc. etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The incident is a minor road traffic accident and is of no long-term significance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but no-one can predict its long-term significance. I suspect the licence surrender is the nearest the Royal Family has come to a plea bargain? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That "no-one can predict its long-term significance" is precisely why we should not have an article yet. The way things are supposed to work is that first a topic should become notable, and only then should we have an article about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term significance already happened, he surrendered his licence and not right away but 2 weeks later AFTER getting a replacement Land Rover. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks long-term? Don't be so silly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so we avoid over coverage of recent events. Add to this the fact that in general events in a person's life are covered in the biography of that person. We need something truly, truly extraordinary to justify a separate article, and this is not something of that nature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like Health of Donald Trump, a notable joke article about everything but his health? Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

extraordinary? Not just a "fender bender" but the Land Rover was on its side, other car passenger had broken bones, and the Duke of Edinburgh surrendered his licence. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many accidents that cause broken bones and the surrender or loss of a driving licence happen every day, so not extraordinary at all. This has only been in the news because Philip is a public figure, so a mention is warranted in his article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Breaking news He's also given up his fighter pilot's licence. Poor ol' Phil.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as I do that he "wouldn't be seen dead" in an F-22. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This article has long lasting effects. The Duke of Edinburgh broke someone's arm and permanently gave up driving. In 1964, he had a collision but there was no long lasting effect and no Wikipedia article. Princess Diana's road accident is also covered in Wikipedia. The accident also brought up into public discussion elderly driving. There are too many details to merge it with the Prince Philip article. If the Duke of Edinburgh, at age 96 in 2017 let his licence expire or returned it, it wouldn't be a Wikipedia article, I agree. However, he had a very serious accident and many other factors leading to a permanent, long lasting change, surrender of licence. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Diana's collision may have had a slightly bigger impact on the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, because people died. However, death is not a requirement in Wikipedia.

WP:NOTNEWS is cited but this article passes the NOTNEWS criteria:

WP:NOTNEWS means (and I quote below)

For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

THIS IS NOT ROUTINE

Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

THIS IS MORE THAN A SINGLE EVENT. IT WAS ABOUT THE LACK OF APOLOGY, CONTINUED UNSAFE DRIVING, WORLDWIDE DEBATE ABOUT THE ELDERLY, BELATED APOLOGY, SURRENDER OF LICENSE

A diary.

THIS IS NOT A DIARY.

So while citing "WP:NOTNEWS" sounds like a nice reason, this article complies with not being news just the same as Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is a news article. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, you know that accident actually involved 307 people, three of whom died. (One of those was run over by a rescue vehicle after she had died, although it wasn't a Land Rover Freelander or a Kia Carens). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CLOSE THIS AFD AS A KEEP - WHEN A NOMINATOR DOESN'T BELIEVE IN DELETE OR CHANGES THEIR MIND FROM DELETE TO KEEP, THE AFD CLOSES. THE NOMINATOR DOES NOT ADVOCATE KEEP. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot <big> there?? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
and also forgot to read the nomination statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment @Squeaky Rubber Duck: Your intentions towards wanting to retain the article appear in good faith, however I am concerned that you have been blind-sided by your own belief for what is noteworthy inclusion as a long-lasting wikipedia article. I would even go as far as to say (although I can't validate this view), that you seem more keen to have an article you can put your name to and claim credit for than to consider the reality of its noteworthiness. Yes, it made news; yes, people talked about it and yes, it was not Philip's finest hour.. yes, it is news. However, it's not the event in particular that made the news, but the individual whom was the primary subject matter. I have previously said that if we had law changes in this country that could be directly attributed to this event and a discussion in parliament surrounding specifically this event, with proven long-lasting effects with sustained news coverage, then it would have to be considered differently. This AfD is only 2 days in and yet there is already an overwhelming majority who have the foresight to judge this with clear understanding on wikipedia's policy surrounding news vs not-news. I perceive your recent contributions towards this AfD as a forlorn attempt to make something greater than what it is to support your own position. I'd encourage you to invest your time and efforts into an article that will not be in vein. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's clearly a recreation of an article previously deleted per a deletion discussion, as is obvious by comparing the last deleted version with the first recreated version: [8]. SPA who created it both times should be blocked if the article is recreated again. DrKay (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, what news twist could possibly bring this back for a third time? Or maybe, you know, it's just written in the stars? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The incident is already covered in sufficient detail in Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh#Retirement. No redirect is needed. —teb728 t c 08:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete~~/Redirect~~ ~~with regret.~~ I feel sorry for this article as it is well written and referenced. The "event" is drowning in strong independent RS from UK and even International outlets (given Philip's own mega-notability). However, the essence of the event is trivial, and WP is not The DailyMail. WP:NEVENT is unlikely to be met here, HOWEVER, I could also live with a Redirect to Phillip's BLP to preserve the content just in case something happens down the line (e.g. UK driving laws amended on the back of this). It would also be fun to preserve the content of the above entertaining discussion on the Talk Page. Britishfinance (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"UK driving laws amended on the back of this"?? That's about as likely as the Queen abdicating. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The probability of the Queen abdicating before she dies is definitely not zero, so you are arguing against yourself. When an current active WP editor has written a well referenced WP article that does not involve clear WP:PROMO or WP:COI (or other offensive aspect), I like to pay them some respect for their efforts, and where I can offer them even a small bone, I do. Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, you are right. The probability of a change to the law, because of this, is almost certainly zero. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC) yes, I looked for a small bone on eBay too, but found only bits of plastic.[reply]

Comment - additional comment WP:NOTAVOTE Wikipedia is not a vote. The argument of "not news" is not a Wikipedia policy. However, there is WP:NOTNEWS which is not "not news". Rather, WP:NOTNEWS is about original reporting, one event, and routine news (see the NOTNEWS guidelines page). This article is not about one trivial event but a series of internationally well covered events such as the accident, apology controversy, debate about elderly drivers, controversy over Prince Philip continuing to drive and in a dangerous manner (including no seat belt), surrender of license, and (not yet in article) the decision not to prosecute in part due to surrender of license. Not one trivial event. Many oppose users are deletionists but this Wikipedia article shouldn't be the sacrificial lamb. One viewer did say this article is well written and reference and nobody said the article was junk. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - SPECIAL NOTICE TO ADMINISTRATION This AFD was decided as no consensus, default to keep on 16 February 2019 but someone who did not like the result, reverted it back to an open AFD. I believe this is improper. If allowed to occur then anyone could change an AFD result that they didn't like. See

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2019_Prince_Philip_Road_Accident_and_Licence_Surrender&type=revision&diff=883577654&oldid=883570615 Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this really was "one trivial event." The only reason it received so much media coverage was because of the identity of one of the drivers. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to get into special notices to administration (with or without capital letters) I would point out that the editor who tried to close this before seven days were up was canvassed by the article creator, made the closure as that editor's sixteenth edit and was involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Alarm bells start to ring, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ....and I don't mean on the 1950s Black Mariah c/o the Old Bill, either ....[reply]

I think it's clear where this is headed; it has 1 less keep vote than the last one (courtesy of Martinevans123), of which 1 (or half) is still also the article creator and there was no dispute on the previous AfD outcome. Despite my suggestion some days prior, Squeaky Rubber Duck continues to push this "dead duck" of an AfD. I suggest maybe salting both articles and requesting any future attempt should be approved, perhaps via WP:AfC (although yet another title could well be used to circumvent that). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Withdrawing my small bone. Delete. Britishfinance (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable event. In 2015 nearly 30 000 licences were surrended in the previous 12 months.^[1] Only notability is the subject of the RTC. If it had been a member of the public, it might have reached the local newspaper. The article's whole tone sounds as if it has been copied from various tabloids. Equine-man (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in cases like this, with an older driver, it is not official CPS policy to not pursue a conviction when a license is surrendered, but it is just more convenient, as it achieves much the same end result and costs the tax-payer nothing. Emma Fairweather may have been covered for injury under the Kia driver's insurance, even in a "no fault found" situation. But I suspect we will never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I already closed this AFD as no consensus, default to keep but some, at least twice, did not like it so they removed my closure. This is inappropriate. At the time of closure, I weighed many opinions including the not news argument. This AFD should be closed with the same result as I made because otherwise it would be a bad precedent that if you disagree with an AFD, you can just remove the closure. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397430/FOIR4341_How_many_people_hold_licences_in_the_UK.pdf

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Oracle Applications#Oracle E-Business Suite. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Property Manager[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-prodded without rationale. SITH (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oracle Applications#Oracle E-Business Suite, which it is a module of. Not notable on its own. --Michig (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annalisse Mayer[edit]

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

De-prodded without rationale. Original nomination was Appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of major reviews or other significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not often a database search for a name comes up with zero hits, but that's what's happened here. The name is a pseudonym, apparently. More importantly, there seems to be little to no coverage of what appear to be self-published (iUniverse, etc) books, so there's no clear path to notability under WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Bakazaka (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. A pseudonym could pass WP:AUTHOR, bu tit would have to have WP:SIGCOV, which this writer and her books lack.23:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk)
Delete Self-promotion is my belief. Style of writing suggests page created by this person. Equine-man (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loran (cassette)[edit]

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

De-prodded (courtesy ping Necrothesp). Original nomination rationale was: Reads like a personal reflection on a non-notable product brand. SITH (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. Nothing here to establish notability and plenty of POV statements; at minimum a case for "draftification". Britishfinance (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There isn't really any information available to write about this subject. I don't feel that it meets WP:GNG. Search only gives up few links to some social media sites, and e-commerce platforms. I am able to find a few sources about the company, than this particular product. I don't think they are good enough establish notability as well. KCVelaga (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India Nette[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Figure_skating]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable ice dancer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator mentioned, the subject doesn't meet the NSPORTS guideline, not even WP:GNG. I think it is WP:TOOSOON, the person may be popular at sometime in future, and be notable. But for now, since we're not a crystal ball, please delete. KCVelaga (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Same as the article about her partner. Fails both WP:NSKATE and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to General authority. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Aldin Porter[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards to qualify for an article. Said searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and very little coverage in said sources at all. Those found consists of fleeting passing mentions, name checks and quotations, the latter of which are primary in nature. Additionally, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources and one unreliable source, none of which establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to general authority. Trillfendi (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to general authority. Not notable enough for an independent article. Britishfinance (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is not mentioned in General authority, but he is mentioned (as a list entry) in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus, so if redirect is the outcome I would recommend that article/section as the preferred target. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nom or Redirect per User:Bakazaka. Primary sources only and not notable. Otr500 (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl C. Tingey[edit]

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

After WP:BEFORE source searches, finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article per WP:BASIC notability standards. Independent sources are only providing passing mentions and name checks, along with quotations, the latter of which are primary in nature. Searches for book reviews have provided no evidence that WP:AUTHOR is met. Furthermore the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, and one unreliable source, none of which confer notability per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). This one does not. Cited sources are either not independent (Mormon Times, Liahona, Ensign) or not reliable (self-published "Grampa Bill"). Even more remarkable is that the included sources, while not independent, are mostly just passing mentions in job change announcements, one of which was cited to support a claim it did not even discuss. The article is basically just the corporate bio from LDS public relations. Independent reliable sources don't offer much either, as the subject is mentioned in passing (spoke at an event, changed jobs) or quoted without critical analysis. None of it is significant coverage of this subject. Some LDS leaders pass WP:GNG. This one does not seem to pass. Open to reconsidering if significant coverage of this subject emerges in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Bakazaka (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. CoronaryKea (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gamache[edit]

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

Contested PROD almost two years ago, but I failed to follow up with AfD at the time. Non-notable minor league player. Refs 4, 7, and 8 do not contribute to WP:GNG as they are not in depth coverage. Every minor leaguer gets a stats site on B Ref and Baseball Cube. Also note this is not the same person as the shoe guy with the same name. Look at the photo to be sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. CoronaryKea (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Has the usual coverage expected for any minor leaguer. Fails both the GNG and WP:NBASEBALL. Sandals1 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy Pink Box[edit]

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

Seems to lack notability. Madness ^Darkness 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH with a lack of independent significant coverage in reliable sources, for example the xbiz piece is a very promotional piece indeed with no independent analysis, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot find any no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMan[edit]

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

Non notable software that simply fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. WP:BEFORE does not bring me much except download links and blogs or forums, with books being about Mediaman Infotech. The references included in the article are the one in the AfD which are:

1. Official website (WP:PRIMARY source)
2. A review written by a person named Howard and has a link posted at the end of it as a promotional part. Enough said about the site's reliability.
3. This one is a good reference, covers the subject in detail, is reliable. But not enough on it's own.
4. Is a blog as said on the https://www.musicbymailcanada.com/index.html which makes it not a reliable source, nor it has any author attached to it (not a surprise). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Due to the following reviews, I believe it passes WP:GNG and WP:NWEB.

[9] (Softpedia)
[10] (Neowin)
[11] (CNET / Download.com)
[12] [13] (TechAdvisor / Techworld / IDG)
[14] (Lifehacker)
[15] (Softpedia)

MarkZusab (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarkZusab WP:GNG requires significant coverage. For the Neowin one, I said it in my nom above, the review itself is PR per the link placement and the end and (at that time) did not have an editorial control at least (because of the author's name in the article, making it blog like). CNET one, eh. Is it really a WP:SIGCOV? I dont see much about the software itself here and is written by Download.com staff. Techadvisor and Techworld are the same one, but it is a solid one to use, thanks for finding it. Lifehacker reference is not a WP:SIGCOV, only the first two sentences are about the software itself, also a blog making it unreliable. And the second Softpedia reference is the download page from which content already exists in the first one anyways. Even with Softpedia and Techraptor reference, I feel it is too borderline for me to consider withdrawing the nom. If someone finds something else, I will immediately do that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Blaze[edit]

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

Don't think that this musician meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NMUSIC notability. Actaudio (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, in-depth coverage; fails WP:GNG. Omni Flames (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Shantikunj. There appears to be a general consensus against retention. However consensus ends there. In such cases it is my usual practice to go with the best available alternative offered in the discussion per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawati Devi Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, I can't find any reliable sources quoting her as a notable person, and based on the article,it might not be right to classify her as a "social reformer". Those who think this article shouldn't exist should also have a look at the articles edited by User:Anusut, seems to be a case of COI Daiyusha (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shantikunj. There may be more sources for her specifically, but what I have found (not much in English; there may well be more in Hindi) is about her in relation to the spiritual organisation and her husband (eg Divine Enterprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement by Lise McKean (University of Chicago Press, 1996) [16]; an article in United News of India about the BJP national president, which includes that he paid tribute at the shrine to both husband and wife [17]). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen I am from India, and based on my experience here, i can say most if not all "reliable" "Indian" sources will always be in English, such is the importance English is given here, Only "local" news agencies will be in Hindi because Hindi is not the native language of about 50% of Indians. There are national-level hindi news agencies as well, but they(on their own) certainly don't qualify as "Reliable". And based on that opinion, I ignored any Hindi sites that come up as a search result. Either way, I know Hindi and if anyone who doesn't know it want help regarding translation of a hindi source, i'm happy to help. Daiyusha (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:56, 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 14:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: Fails GNG. Confused about the rituals "....were to be performed without conducting any violence against a general perception of animal sacrifice.". A horse sacrifice without harming a horse? Otr500 (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I do rather wish that there was a 'WP:Behind every great man stands a great woman'. That is, a lot of women in history may have done noteworthy work but only their husband gets mentioned in written sources. Anyway, I have found an academic source for this person running the All World Gayatri Pariwar after her husband's death (and a quick scholar.google.com search indicates that this is a notable organisation). And there's decent evidence for her editing the journal Akhand Jyoti. (I've added these points to the article lead.) These might be considered substantial enough achievements to meet GNG? It would be helpful to find proper references for her Veda commentaries as well. Alarichall (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. it looks from p. 274 fn 15 of Daniel Philip Heifetz, 'From Gurudev to Doctor-Sahib: Religion, Science, and Charisma in the All World Gayatri Pariwar', Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 30.3 (2018), 252-78 doi:10.1163/15700682-12341433 that his PhD thesis discussed the subject of this article in more detail and that he'll be publishing on her in future. Alarichall (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have seen a quite a few LDS-Church BLPs deleted this week on the basis that any of their references were specific only to sources from their own organisation (which was the right decision per WP policy). This case would almost exactly meet that test; outside of her own followers, she is not notable. There seems to be a few eastern "gurus" in the AfD queue that keep trying to get their articles on en-WP for some reason. But outside very narrow sources (few of whom are RS), there is no material WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have to be careful about using Merge or Redirect with these "gurus" as there is often a strong WP:COI aspect to their article creation (per this BLP Gaur Gopal Das), and I fear they will keep coming back. I notice that nomination of this AfD also concerns WP:COI. Britishfinance (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dareysteel. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Boom (Dareysteel song)[edit]

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

The song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Dareysteel) - sources present (not counting the one that's lost its domain) and elsewhere don't seem to tick the boxes requires for WP:NSONG. Generally minimalistic and usually mostly about the artist in any case. However, where there is an artist with an article, songs should be redirected to them. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist's article, per the above suggestion. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Article does not meet WP:NSONG requirements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City View Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. This article is about a "Mall" in Ohio that was closed down, there is no point of significance for the article to exist. I couldn't find any reliable sources for it to establish notability. Daiyusha (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article that completely lacks proper sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you couldn't find any reliable sources, you weren't looking very hard. - Eureka Lott 04:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A WP:BEFORE found sources. Added sources into article. Pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NBUILD.--Pontificalibus 14:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A literal dead mall which died after three years due to incredible municipal and developer incompetence is definitely notable; writing needs a good fixing up, but definitely not deletion. Nate • (chatter) 05:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article on Garfield Heights, Ohio. In the long span of history this place is not worth a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Sources in the article make the subject meet WP:GNG 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 123Aristotle (talk • contribs). [reply]

Keep There are many things that can be added, such as the fact it's literally sinking into the ground, and it was built on top of a landfill that methane is leaking out of. Almy (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin's Minions[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this isn't even a real team, just people who worked for the Mandarin at certain times. Appears to be WP:FANCRUFT. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mandarin (comics) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insignificant within the fiction, and the proposed merge would give it undue weight. The fictional biography at Mandarin (comics) is already 5300+ words without mentioning the group. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Sourced by comic books? Otr500 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As stated, this is not even an actual team name from the comics, just a term that was seemingly coined by the article creator. As such, it has no valid sources to support any of the information, and so a merge would be pointless. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unadulterated fancruft, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star of the West (Bahá'í magazine)[edit]

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

Article on an in-house Bahá'í faith magazine which cites no reliable independent sources. A search finds directories, press releases, namechecks and nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per nom. One primary source that is BLP related. Otr500 (talk) 03:43, 11 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 delete. WP:A7. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JBJ's Bakery[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement or rationale. Local bakery which searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possible CSD A7): An unreferenced article which merely provides the location and hours of a business. The article creator removed the CSD, leading to it being brought to AfD. Nothing in the article makes a claim to notability, so the CSD was appropriate (and is being replaced), and searches are finding no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muirs[edit]

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

Highly promotional, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. SITH (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. Is not linked to at all from main space except from New Zealand hip hop (and then only a single mention, in a list). Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some claims might be notable (radio play and tour), if they could be verified, but I can find nothing. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. (Dushan Jugum (talk)).
Delete no evidence of notability and barely gets trivial coverage. CoronaryKea (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Manning[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASEBALL John from Idegon (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created as a redirect to his father. Attempted to restore that but was reverted. John from Idegon (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Nom. I liked your original redirect. I fully support going back to it. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 14:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG already. None of the following sources are in the article at present: Sacramento Bee, MLB.com, The Athletic, MLive.com, Local Sports Journal, Lakeland Ledger, Detroit News, Detroit News again, MiLB.com, MiLB.com again, Detroit Free Press. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, John from Idegon: I put some work into the article. Would you like to reconsider? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu, oh dear. That's a model level of clean-up right there. I am now Strong Keep due to these recent changes. Thank you so much for the quality edits! ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 18:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Plenty of sources. One of the top prospects in baseball also and likely to make his debut this year.-- Yankees10 19:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yankees10, please read or reread (whichever applies) WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thank you. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 20:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of crystal ball, thanks. It was just an added point. Sourcing is the main reason why it should be kept.-- Yankees10 20:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is not GNG here. None of the articles discuss him in detail. None. And the SNG is clear, it does not kick in until he plays in the bigs. John from Idegon (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, have you read any of the articles? How can you say that none of them discuss him in detail? Did you perform WP:BEFORE? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Detroit Tigers minor league players I explain this in far more reasoning here, including why the sourcing doesn't really help him clear GNG as is being argued, but the community has decided that being a baseball prospect (even a really good one) isn't worthy of inclusion. This makes sense when 1/3 of 1st round picks like Manning never make the majors. We have no deadline, let's make sure that we reach a point where manning will be worthy of being thought of in 10 years, by letting him clear the SNG bar. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, you're speaking in generalities about prospects, but this is a discussion about one specific prospect. Have you read these sources? Because they don't present run of the mill coverage. Your essay doesn't apply to a case where the subject has sourcing like this, covering his life in detail. One third of first round picks don't make the majors, but that's a misleading stat. Most of those two thirds who don't make the majors have flamed out or are still struggling in the low minors at this point in their careers. Manning just had his best season. Barring a major injury or an unforseen collapse, Manning will be a major leaguer, as early as 2019. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu I have read that some of that coverage, and skimmed the rest. I have also read similar coverage about literally dozens of other prospects. I enjoy reading it. I'm a baseball fan. That doesn't make Manning notable in a Wikipedia sense and in fact the prevalence of such coverage is at the core of why I argue we should give greater deference to the criteria of SNG. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, GNG supersedes SNGs in all cases. You don't think that 18 sources cited inline, most of them having significant depth, plus one further reading source, plus all of the other ones I didn't add to the article, meets GNG? Fine, that's your opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu I don't dispute that GNG supersedes the SNG which is why I wrote an entire essay about how GNG looks so great in these situations at first blush but really isn't - too long to repeat at AfD. The 17 sources linked are exactly the kind that highly touted draft picks receive, they are simply not special. If Manning fails to reach the major league we will likely not care about him in 10 years. Notability is not temporary and the kind of sustained coverage necessary to qualify for notability is not met by an otherwise unexceptional first round draft pick like Manning. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, how much do we care about someone who played briefly in the major leagues over ten years ago? Yet, they meet notability. How much we are likely to "care" about Manning whether or not he makes the majors in the future seems like an odd rationale to support deletion. It's the quality of the sourcing that matters, and his has been sustained since his high school days. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu Well we seem to care a fair amount about Aaron Bates who played in 5 games 1 season 10 years ago. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add I can find a bunch other one season wonders from that season covered on Wikipedia in some level of depth: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] and those were just the first six Baseball Reference told me who only played that season. Some of those players had clear and decisive outcomes on major league games. Others not as much. Are you aware of any players who played in the minors in 2009, never reached the majors, and who still have Wikipedia articles? Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, Matt Manning's article currently has better sourcing than Aaron Bates', and Bates is a MLB coach at present. There are plenty of MiLB-only players with Wiki bios, including some that I've written. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are some MiLB only players. My question is can you show any MiLB only players from 10 years ago that survive today. I see such players get PRODed successfully regularly and it is my contention that routine coverage of 1st round draft picks simply doesn't provide longterm permanent notability. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to do this because this WP:OTHERSTUFF issue has nothing to do with Manning, but Brien Taylor, Matt Harrington, Ty Hensley, Ntema Ndungidi, Ryan Westmoreland, and Jackson Melián come to mind. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Brien Taylor is a GA-class Wikipedia article, too. So much for "no one caring" about prospects who never play in MLB. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:BASEBALL but sourcing is enough to pass WP:GNG. The issue isn't whether prospects in general are notable, it's whether this one is. Smartyllama (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, which trumps WP:NBASE. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. There is no consensus that prospects aren't worthy of inclusion, only that prospects who don't pass GNG shouldn't be included. Rlendog (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catrin Pritchard[edit]

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

This article is lacking in significant sources, with someone having a close connection of the subject, and it fails WP:NACADEMIC. Sheldybett (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavily cited papers on Google Scholar (16 papers with over 100 citations, 1 with over 1000) give a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, and "appointed Chair of Cancer Biochemistry at the University of Leicester" makes a plausible case for #C5. (The awards are too minor or local for #C2, but only one criterion is enough.) —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep per Eppstein. This misguided nomination should be withdrawn. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per David. I also expanded the article a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. Nomination seems to be based on searching for {{Notability}} tags rather than independently assessing through WP:BEFORE. Bakazaka (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time for Sheldybett to withdraw this nom I think. Victuallers (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Google scholar shows plenty of citations and she clearly meets WP:NPROF. Sandals1 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep According to THIS, it meets WP:NPROF. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion that has occurred here regarding the article's title can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dutton (drug lord)[edit]

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

This man doesn't seem to meet notability standards. He doesn't seem to be a cocaine dealer of note. A Google search shows there a many more famous "Simon Duttons than him. Removing key search words related to those actors and sportsmen and then adding "cocaine" brought back less than 500 results, almost all related to his arrest. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet looked into this deeply enough to express a "keep" or "delete" opinion, but if this is kept a less sensational disambiguator than "drug lord" needs to be found. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only known for one trial and no sustained coverage, therefore fails WP:CRIME. A £1.6 million drug trafficking business is hardly what you might call a drug lord. Hzh (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sustained coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched "Simon Dutton" + cocaine, he's been in the news for years, below is just a sampling of what I found. Ohter search terms would probably find other sources.

2016 Manchester Evening News 'Most wanted' man who aimed to flood Greater Manchester's streets with cocaine is jailed
2015 BBC Britain's most wanted criminals hunted in Spain
2014 Greater Manchester News (scroll down) Revealed: the £2m illegal tobacco baron from
2011 BBC Of 60 wanted people named by Operation Captura in the last five years, 46 have since been taken into custody. The other eight suspects named are: Simon Dutton, 34, from Bolton, wanted in connection with the importation of cocaine with a street value of £1.6m from Spain to north west England.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill criminal who's name pops up from time-to-time in the news. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by E.M.Gregory but rename. I don't know if it's because of The Godfather and Scarface but I think of Al Capone type people when I hear "drug baron". "[D]rug lord" is definitely an NPOV violation. Perhaps "criminal" would be a better disambiguator? I don't know if his crimes meet criminal notability guidelines, but the general notability guideline supersedes all subject-specific notability guidelines (except the one for academics for some reason). SITH (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE anyone? Seriously I don't think one of the Most Wanted Men in Britain is really a run of the mill criminal! There are lots of media coverage and I think the article could easily be improved with the sources available on the web to pass WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is a stub, surely the lack of content has prompted the call for deletion, but given more content it should stay, as per the sources of E.M.Gregory Garlicolive (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - per sources. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It took a while, but it appears we have a rough consensus to delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Central Minnesota[edit]

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

This region, as defined in the article, seems to be an invention by prominently mentioned "development consortium" GPS:45:93. Other than their brochure, only one of the cited sources even mentions "East Central Minnesota", and it's unclear whether they mean the same region. I couldn't find significant references to those five counties as "East Central Minnesota" outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The local library organization and labour council use the term "East Central Minnesota", but they don't mean these five counties (and they don't agree with each other, either), so there's no indication that this is a well-defined region. The content of the article is mostly a bunch of lists and statistics that may be correct, but grouping them in this way is original research. Huon (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This region is specifically defined in many places, most notably by the State of Minnesota here. Places in proximity to the region or adjacent to the region are at times loosely and incorrectly referred to as in East Central Minnesota, but locals know which five counties are in actuality in the region.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John2690-john2690: So the East-Central Regional Library, East Central Minnesota Area Labor Council, East Central Energy, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are all non-locals who don't know what they're talking about? Sure about that? Huon (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete to Minnesota. Fails WP:GNG and consequently fails WP:GEOLAND.--Pontificalibus 11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC) ...Changed to delete on reflection because there is nothing here worth mentioning not already mentioned in Geography of Minnesota.--Pontificalibus 16:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ - as it meets WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized place by the State of Minnesota here. The other aforementioned organizations (i.e. labor council, electric co-op, etc.) loosely base themselves on this region. Are you able to clarify your reference about the Minnesota DNR? Thanks. --John2690-john2690 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Central Minnesota Economic Development Region is not a "populated place" which is what WP:GEOLAND refers to, it is an area - are you suggesting that all the other areas on that page are automatically notable, e.g. Workforce Service Area 03, Mankato-North Mankato Micro-Statistical Area? --Pontificalibus 09:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce service area 3 is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Mankato-North Mankato Micro-Statistical Area already has a page Mankato – North Mankato metropolitan area although entitled incorrectly. All of Minnesota's micropolitan statistical areas have their own Wiki pages. East Central Minnesota is more than an economic development region; it is a notable place name, important to Minnesotans and non-Minnesotans alike.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Mankato-North Mankato Metropolitan Area (not micropolitan, no, they are a federally designated MPO now see https://mnmapo.org/) is different then a multi-county region of a state. We aren't talking about Southern Minnesota or South-Central Minnesota. Neither of those have pages and are far more culturally defined. By comparison Region Nine Development Commission does not have a separate page. That is an apples to oranges comparison and your point is factually inaccurate. Outside of maybe the economic development staff and some regional planners the term does not have relevance in a common, verifiable way that is appropriate for a seperate Wikipedia page. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, East Central Energy Coop, East Central Economic Development, Habitat.org. It goes on forever, but East Central Minnesota is not an "invention". Also see Texas Hill Country, Southern California, Mississippi Delta, and on and on. Do not merge. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those three regions all have multiple sources dicussing the characterstics of the relevent region in detail. However, the sources you've provided don't represent signficant coverage in reliable sources. The first also assigns 13 counties to the region, only two of which are present in the list of 5 counties in our article. WP:GEOLAND states "subdivisions...informal regions of a state..should be included in the more general article" if they fail WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus 15:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: - do any two of those organizations use the same definition of "East Central Minnesota"? I don't think so. Are there reliable sources that consistently define what "East Central Minnesota" is and that discuss it? I haven't seen any. Just becase the combinations of words "East Central Minnesota" (or "east central Minnesota") sees use, it's not necessarily a valid topic for an encyclopedia article. Removing all WP:SYN content would amount to blanking the page. Huon (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Geography of Minnesota. I haven't run into anything significant describing this region that wasn't related to a watershed or flooding. Consider also merging Central Minnesota, which also suffers from a lack of content.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm seeing a lot of independent news sources making mention of this region https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22East+Central+Minnesota%22+-wikipedia.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All trivial passing mentions, like "central southern England" which is used by e.g. weather forecasters but doesn't warrant an article because there is no in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources.--Pontificalibus 07:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John2690-john2690: Standard protocol on Wikipedia is that you should only give one bold "keep" vote. It's improper to reply to another user in a deletion discussion with a bold "keep" if you have already stated your opinion, because it is otherwise difficult to distinguish and may appear as additional support.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Do not keep this in the Main article space. It currently fails WP:GNG. WP:USERFYIT until significant coverage occurs. Pontificalibus finds that sources ... don't represent significant coverage in reliable sources. Unable to locate better sources, I agree with Pontificalibus. I encountered the same as Molandfreak, finding (nothing) significant describing this region and I support Huon's finding that removing all WP:SYN content would amount to blanking the page. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:SYNTH article and should be deleted. Of the sources provided above, none of them clearly define "East Central" as a source. This is functionally a WP:NORG article for the GPS thing masquerading as a geography article, though there are a couple of other organisations which do appear to serve the five county region, though there are many other articles which define the area more broadly. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:SYNTH article and should be deleted. Being that I am member of Minnesota wikiproject and from Minnesota I have yet to hear of a commonly accepted definition of what "East Central Minnesota" is. I think that this is original research that was used to create a new term that is not narrowly defined, verifiable way. Yes, there is a regional development commission that covers this area but there is not enough verifiable information nor is there a true body of culture that exists to differentiate what is and is not 'east-central' vs 'central' vs 'west-central'. This concept stands apart from commonly use references to regions such as Northern Minnesota, the Iron Range, the Twin Cities, Southern Minnesota, the Arrowhead etc. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not too concerned by inconsistent definitions, but the article as it stands amounts to promotion for GPS:45:93 and the definition is based on their interests. Having said that, there is a possible article to write at this title. I am seeing a lot of sources on the geology of the region which seems to be distinctive, and possibly the same for ecology. SpinningSpark 19:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because a region may exist (with or without defined boundaries) there no need to duplicate such basic mundane information like the county seats just because it's there. Even if it has distinctive geology there's Geology of Minnesota and this article is pointless synthesis. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It may make some sense to take off county seats, but this region has defined boundaries by the State of Minnesota (region 7e, East Central Minnesota) and numerous other regional organizations. Enough so to deem it notable.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Untenable synthesis almost completely devoid of worthwhile information that doesn't appear in a more suitable place. There is nothing in this article that would provide any real value or understanding to a reader. "East Central Minnesota" is a vague title and could mean a number of things - what's here now does not warrant an article. (Anecdotally, I have never heard of the phrase "PICKM Counties" - it sounds like a neologism developed as a marketing attempt, and the references seem to bear that out.) --Sable232 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shehab Mohamed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NFOOTY since he never played an international game and the league that he plays in isn't listed on WP:FPL. Only sources I managed to scour are automatically generated player profiles. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not noted in the article itself, but according to Soccerway Shehab Mohamed played nine times in the FPL-listed Egyptian Premier League, for two different clubs. Therefore passes NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, didn't notice this. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Poor quality article that fails to meet the GNG, but he does meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Images[edit]

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

Third nomination. Unable to find multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:RS to indicate any notable awards or work. It was kept in 2006 under N:CORP, which changed last year, and it no longer satisfies. Furthermore, the site linked throughout this pages history now redirects to a vendor of lenticular prints: http://www.dynamicimages.com --Theredproject (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Judging from Wayback, the company/site became inactive in mid-2007, until about 4 years ago when the site address taken on by Travel Tags Inc. That would not in itself be a factor indicating deletion, but does put beyond access sources considered into the 2006 AfD discussion. While noting opinion in that AfD such as "Highly notable and innovative media company", searches on various terms are not finding verifying references. That leaves the two offline references but it is unclear to what extent these considered the company or a piece of campaign work in which they were involved: it seems likely that these would fall short of the current WP:NCORP requirements, and searches are finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Staburags (newspaper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEWSNOTE. Completely unsourced stub that wasn't edited once since its creation by a blocked user in 2010. See also this entry that was created by the same blocked user and nominated for the exact same reason. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 07:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mccapra (talk) 12:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 sentence unsourced stub with 1 edit from a blocked user. No prejudice against recreation --DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandra Mohapatra[edit]

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

This article is about an individual who does not meet notability. The article has no sources whatsoever. There is no clear claim of notability. The lead states he was a freedom fighter but with no explanation. Based on Sailo Jharapada, it appears to be for India's independence. However, there is no detail as to what he did nor could I find any sources that covered this individual's participation. There is also a statement that he individual participated in stage drama and became a director. Again, there are no details, nor could I find any sources. There is also his role in village politics that is mentioned. Again, I can find no coverage about this at all. Whpq (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't enough by itself to make the subject notable, but there are mentions here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content fails WP:V. I'm not certain the gbooks hits by Bridger are on the same individual, and even if they are - it doesn't seem he passes GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that they are about the same individual - the time and place agree and the person of this name described in those sources could be described by some as a "freedom fighter", but in the cause of Odisha nationalism rather than Indian independence as guessed by the nominator. However that's all rather irrelevant unless we can find sources that are better than those passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 07:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- The present article merely suggests that he was an undistinguished independence campaigner. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. E. Thomas[edit]

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

Non notable person. Most of the refs are press releases about the company. A half decent article about the person's spiritual experiences exists though I don't believe that alone imparts any notability. Created and edited by single use editors who only edit associated pages. Jupitus Smart 07:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is purely promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is purely promotional. Many of the references in this article are junk. Britishfinance (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and is certainly a WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merchem[edit]

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

Non notable company. Most of the refs seems to be press releases. Seems to have been created and mainly edited on by single purpose editors. The company does have a good ref here in this quirky news article [24] though I don't believe that is not enough to impart any lasting notability Jupitus Smart 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is purely promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Britishfinance (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Limited[edit]

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

Non notable IT company. The only references seem to be press releases about some software launched by the company Jupitus Smart 07:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is purely promotional. Skirts89 (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Britishfinance (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Alamgir[edit]

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

Do not pass the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. Suspicious notability per WP guideline. Re-created after previous dissuccion of deletion. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only minor independent coverage by sources exist on the subject. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST just as it did the first time. MarkH21 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There may be notability here. a Proquest new archive search turned some stuff up:

Bangladeshi journalist sued for 'defamatory' Facebook post BBC Monitoring South Asia; London [London]31 Jan 2018....newspaper The Daily Star on 31 January Journalist Anis hitAlamgir was sued......Anis hitAlamgir, a part-time teacher at Dhaka University, made another post on his...
Bangladesh police harass journalists during curfew - paper BBC Monitoring Media; London [London]24 Aug 2007: 1....home during the curfew. Anis Alamgir, news chief of Bashakhi TV,......released, according to the police. Anis Alamgir, head of news at......television channel Boishakhi's head of news hitAnis hitAlamgir, Bangladesh Today...
DIU introduces 'Unconditional Appreciation Awards' The New Nation; Dhaka [Dhaka]04 Sep 2015. ...hitAnis hitAlamgir and Former Pro- Vice Chancellor of Jahangirnagar University Prof...
World journalists body IFJ warns Bangladesh over attacks on media BBC Monitoring Media; London [London]24 Aug 2007: 1. ...over the past two days were hitAnis hitAlamgir, head of the news department at...E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like minor coverage to me. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:JOURNALIST. AD ^Talk 12:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I actually think sources indicate notability here. I think he does pass WP:GNG at minimum. There are more sources (per EM Gregory above) which should be added as references in the article. Skirts89 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Minor coverage doesn't pass any notability. I found where Anis Alamgir left the human race but that is just a catchy title for "Anis Alamgir resigned from his job" and is mundane coverage. Otr500 (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Mirza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

Page was undeleted recently on a request (Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Mariam_Mirza) by a sock of User:Pakistanpedia. Saqib (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven allegation

Keep Previously it was nominated by now blocked user [25] and only delete vote was of the nominator himself [26] resulted in "soft delete". I check one news source thats why requested. Also please check https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/you/305233-mariam-mirza in which whole of the news article is about her career. If she is not notable why would admin Graeme Bartlett undeleted the article? Senior actors in Pakistan receives not much coverage but their are many standalone articles then why her not. 185.178.49.114 (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, my undeletion says nothing about notability, only that the previous delete was a softdelete and can be contested. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can somebody who speaks Urdu check and let us know what Pakistani coverage of her says? It seems likely there is coverage, considering English-language sources already linked to. For GNG we require significant coverage in any language, not just in English. For NACTOR we'd need indication that her multiple roles have been significant, etc. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. samee converse 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. samee converse 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject meet Wikipedia WP:Person guidelines and is a prominent actor.Also article has enough material to be on Wikipedia.Lillyput4455 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not impressed by the level of WP:PAG cited in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's relatively easy to see she has significant coverage. Regular significant reoccurring role [27] More notable in Pakistan than the West but that's not the point here. Karl Twist (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Airlines[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No third party coverage of the airline. Had need verification tag since 2013 with little changes. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct airlines AFDs:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the airline clearly existed and operated flights the lack of referencing should have been raised for improvment and is not a reason to delete. MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne, all the links are dead and I can't find any third-party coverage required by WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason to delete it just needs some work doing to it, it has flown services using an aircraft as big as the Boeing 757 so is noteworthy for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well not all operational companies are worthy of inclusion. There are tons of charter airline companies but not all of them are on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that very few that have operated aircraft the size of the Boeing 737 or 757 are missing, if there is we need create some new articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides no evidence that the subject is notable. Maproom (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear why you think an airline that operated 200-seat airliners is not somehow of note. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an airline of this size and with this equipment would have significant coverage available, but due to the historic period these would be paper refs, which need to be located. Article needs improving, not deleting. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, well it had the needs verification tag since 2013 and 6 years is a long period of time for reference to be found. Given that nobody did that, it would stand to reason that there is none. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six years is not really a long time in wiki terms, unless somebody brought it to the attention of the project it is unlikely to be noticed. They are 1978 articles in Category:Articles needing additional references from April 2013 among the 360,000 articles tagged. Hardly a go to place. Tagged articles go back to 2006 so the six years is not really significant or relevant. If you find such articles it would be better to go to the relevant project and ask "hey this article needs some refs, anybody help" and give them a chance to improve it rather than AfD straight away. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That comes under WP:BEFORE an AFD is started, sections "C" and "D". - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, well I had checked Google news and all the other sources listed in the "find source" section but nothing came up.

Also, it had been tagged with needs improvement since 2013, so there's plenty of time for the article to be improved. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one of the references in the article satisfy WP:CORPIND. In my BEFORE I was unable to find INDEPTH reliable secondary sources. a short-lived (4 years) small (at peak - 8 aircraft) charter company could plausibly be notable, but it is not a situation where we should presume notability. The dewiki says this was a joint venture with Nordic European Airlines - possibly a merge of some content could be done to there. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. An unremarkable charter airline. These are rarely kept at AfD, unlike scheduled passenger airlines. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, as well as a highly promotional article tone CatcherStorm ^talk 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am convinced that this article complies with the principles and aims of Wikipedia. ESCOP is an internationally acknowledged scientific association of European experts in phytotherapy. ESCOP publishes books that are used as references by pharmacists, medical doctors. Phytomedicine, one highly ranked scientific journal is published in affiliation with ESCOP. ESCOP regularly takes part in the public consultation of the European Medicines Agency. This article is supported by several third-party references. Moreover, it is the translation of an already existing German page. Csupord (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be a number of external references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable to me too. If you don't want it to contain promotional content, remove it yourself. Do it yourself If you are not sure, bring the issue to the talk-page. Someone will make the right-decision as long as your give specific reasoning on why the content ought to be chopped off. As an example:

I saw "zirconia is metal free and is biocompatible" in the old version at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_analogue_dental_implant&oldid=880308366
Then, I gave my independent thought. I said "Conventional titanium is biocompatible too, thus I find this sentence to be boasting".
Someone else chopped off the entire "Advantages" section, and I agree to do so. We shouldn't "force" someone else to read non-neutral content. Tony85poon (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genie in a String Bikini[edit]

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

The film does not appear to have enough coverage from notable, reliable sources to satisfy the conditions for Wikipedia:Notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and the external reviews section at IMDb only has unreliable blog type sources so WP:GNG is not passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a lack of reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kayisha Payne[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass the Google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: She seems like she's on an upward trajectory, but it seems premature to include her in Wikipedia yet.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the topic of GNG: ~~One reference looks to be independent - astrazeneca,~~ but all the other material looks to be written by our subject or released from the organisation founded by the subject. Accademic notability is absent, and even appearance in a top 100 of a small group is not a great claim of importance. Doing a Google search reveals the same references we already have, and a big bunch of solcial media, a significant sign of not being notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: - Astrazeneca is not independent- it's her employer. MedImmune is a wholly owned subsidiary of Astrazeneca, the release by Astrazeneca is a rather standard PR piece prompted by an employee being mentioned positively in the media (in this case in the BAME list). Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK struck my wrong comment, and now a stronger delete vote, being a draft for a few years is also acceptable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [28] published as a influencer if the FT, which established notability. One of the under-represented groups on wikipedia that we should be creating articles for. W C M_email 09:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with Wee Curry Monster. Hninthuzar (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources to really that shows notability in subject. WP:TOOSOON PlotHelpful (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have noticed a tendency for new articles to be nominated for deletion (or even PRODded) very quickly. This article is one week old. The subject's inclusion in a Top 100 BAME leaders in technology dates from just over 2 months ago. The article includes sources like the Financial Times, the official blog of the Institute of Chemical Engineers, and the Inclusive Boards website profile of her, indications that she has gained notability, and is a likely subject for searches. I would prefer to tag the article for notability and more sources, as per WP:BEFORE C2 and C3. The two months that have passed since her inclusion in the Top100 list is not enough time for many scholarly journals to publish anything about it. Some may say it's too soon to include her, but an alternative viewpoint is that Wikipedia can be too quick to delete. Another alternative to deletion would be draftifying or userfying - that would enable the creator and/or other editors to add other sources as they are found. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd like to keep the article because she does have reliable third party sources. The FT establishes her as notable, especially. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the 100 people mentioned over there are wiki-notable? ∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources used in the article already indicate notability. More could no doubt be found.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Find it.∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete-TOOSOON per Graemme. Fails any notability guideline by a few miles or so () and being in the 100s is utterly non-satisfying.∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not averse to a draftification, per Rebecaa's ideas.∯WBG^converse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly not notable - is not close to passing any SNG or GNG. Being named in an ethnic-specific top-100 in a sector-specific list is not an indication of notability nor a significant award. The sole usable reference is the article (disregarding blogs and non-independent sources (e.g. her employer, and an organization she's involved with)) is the FT article (a list of "top 100 BAME in tech") which contains a single line about Payne in the middle of the list - "Kayisha Payne Founder, BBSTEM Associate Scientist II, MedImmune Female" - so clearly fails WP:INDEPTH. Given the clear lack of multiple reliable, independent, in-depth, secondary sources - an article on this subject can not be developed while adhering to WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTSOAP. Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing indications of notability as a scientist or by meeting WP:GNG. As a scientist, her job title is a seemingly unimpressive "Associate Scientist" and, more importantly, I can't find a single reference of her in Google Scholar. In terms of meeting WP:GNG, my own search doesn't find any significant independent coverage. The references in the article consist of something from her company, a short resume from inclusiveboards.com (reliability?), a blog, something from the organization she started, and the listing of her in the FT's article about the list they created (and that's is not significant coverage). This article, at best, seems WP:TOOSOON and claiming notability for founding an new organization that launched last August is both too soon and WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. no achievements of significance found as yet. Only refs are not WP:INDEPTH. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen and WeeCurryMonster -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither the article, nor any other editors, nor my own search found significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to show the GNG is met. I also don't see that any other notability standards are met.Sandals1 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page about a project manager in the research labs of drug company AstraZeneca. She is NOT a PhD scientist and there is no claim ot notability as a scientist. She is a sort of poster child for minority-women-in-STEM, but even here she has no serious or significant claim to notability. I strongly suspect ever editor at Wikipedia of having a strong bias in favor of minorities and women making STEM contributions and of having STEM careers open to everyone. That does not mean that being listed as one of the top 100 black and minority ethnic leaders in technology in the UK in 2018 + notability. It means that the UK has an embarrassingly low number of black and minority ethnic scientists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I am not opposed to it being a draft. I tried searching for research papers/citations but I am unable to find (which could be plausible if the person is not an academic/educator). When I look for sources, there is a mention on a list in Financial Times, but it is among many other names and doesn't offer significant coverage. Lists such as "top x people of y ethnicity in z field" are often published by many media houses and it is unclear how selective they are. Other than this, I am drawing much of a blank for independent third party coverage. I think the person could become notable in the future, but at this time there are very few sources which provide significant coverage.--DreamLinker (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this is hype over substance (and this is not a media-BLP, but a science/academic BLP). Her WP:GNG criteria and her WP:NPROF are effectively zero. I don't know if Astra Zeneca's HR marketing department is at work here but if she hadn't appeard on this top 100 list (however it was constructed), she would be a strong WP:A7 candidate. WP:TOOSOON implies that she is on an academic trajectory, but apart from being an "associate scientist" in AZ, there is no tangible evidence of even such a trajectory? Britishfinance (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTimestamps[edit]

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

Non-notable software. The non-primary sources in the article are three mentions in this paper (search only "opent" or it won't find all mentions), a student paper, and Bitcoin Magazine. Џ 15:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attach some other non-primary sources:

Immutability of Open Data through Distributed Storage, Keio University (Japan), Graduation Thesis
Providing Reliable Log Delivery And Integrity of Logs, Tallinn University of Technology, Master Thesis
How to achieve trustless digital timestamping with zero marginal cost, Politecnico di Milano, "Tesi di Laurea"
Difficulties of Timestamping Archived Web Pages, Old Dominion University (Norfolk, VA)

I consider OpenTimestamps is notable for a Wikipedia article. It provides a robust decentralized timestamping format, and it is already used by many notary services and companies.

--FrankAndProust (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I specify here the arXiv document presented by the OP to better recognize the title and further facilitate ongoing debate if necessary.

(Short Paper) Towards More Reliable Bitcoin Timestamps, Singapore University of Technology and Design

The Bitcoin Magazine article introduced by the OP is also published on NASDAQ:

OpenTimestamps Has Timestamped the Entire Internet Archive — Here’s How

--FrankAndProust (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first three sources are student papers (Italian one says "Tesi di Laurea di/Thesis of") which probably don't qualify as reliable sources. The fourth mentions it five times, but only along with other similar services.

Page 5 "Services, such as OriginStamp 4 , Chainpoint 5 , and OpenTimestamps 6 , generate trusted timestamps in Bitcoin for digital documents. Even though timestamping steps might vary from one service to another, they follow a common procedure:"
Page 6 "Other services, such as Chainpoint, Tangible.io 7, Proof of Existence 8, and OpenTimestamps, are based on the same concept of using Bitcoin to timestamp digital documents. Some differences between these tools include:"
Next three on page 7 "Services like OriginStamp, ChainPoint, and OpenTimestamps support issuing either one Bitcoin transaction per submitted hash or one transaction per aggregated hash."
"Chainpoint and OpenTimestamps uses a Merkle Tree [24] to generate one aggregated hash (i.e., root hash)."
"Chainpoint and OpenTimestamps require installing client software in order to use the timestamping service" Џ 12:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - no RS coverage, academic sources are passing mentions in sources that don't even meet the standard of peer-reviewed single study - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could delve on other papers, but at least the document "Providing Reliable Log Delivery And Integrity of Logs", from Tallinn University of Technology, is a Master Thesis and it has been supervised by a PhD working as a Senior Research Fellow. --FrankAndProust (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The project may not be quite relevant from a purely academic perspective, but it is for practical applications.
OpenTimestamps does not make use of novel techniques to perform its tasks; the main idea behind it can be found in this paper Improving the Efficiency and Reliability of Digital Time-Stamping, D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, 1993 (which is itself cited in the Bitcoin whitepaper), with the main difference that instead of using newspaper advertisment it uses a Bitcoin transaction (or something else, as the project tries to be more abstract). In addition OTS aims to perform a single task, making it easy to embed it in other services (e.g. timestamp database logs, timestamp git commits), but also too simple to raise academic interest. Due to these reasons, it is not simple to submit an academic paper with OTS as a topic or to start a PhD with it as a subject.
In my opinion, OTS is notable and this article is relevant as it provides a high-level description of an open-source software which brings users with a new possibilty: to easily create and independently verify timestamps of their data without the need to trust the timestamp server. In the use cases section there is a list of relevant use cases enabled by OTS.
Would the lack of reliable academic papers citing OTS be enough to delete the page?
In which ways should this article be improved to avoid deletion?
Should it be more adherent to the style guidelines?
Thank you in advance. --LeoComandini (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: OpenTimestamps is notable for a Wikipedia article. It provides a robust decentralized timestamping format, and it is already used by many notary services and companies.
There is already an academic paper which has been reviewed by a Senior Research Fellow at University of Tallinn. Additionally, the article at NASDAQ provides a simple technical perspective of OpenTimestamps and may also be considered a reliable source. --FrankAndProust (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Literally a crypto blog reprint in their blog, so no it can't - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reproducing an article verbatim does not invalidate the fact that it has been published by NASDAQ. Many reliable news organizations also publish verbatim reports by agencies worldwide. Those reports are usually reviewed to a certain extent before being published by the new media brand.--FrankAndProust (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ is not a news source, let alone a WP:RS - it's the blog of an exchange. NASDAQ blog reposts of crypto blogs are generally treated as crypto blogs. This strongly suggests you don't in fact have good sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ is nothing less than the second largest stock exchange in the world, which is owned by Nasdaq Inc, a multinational financial services corporation. I wouldn't dismiss their publication as a common blog.

I post a new document published by Springer Science+Business Media. It is a poster paper written by Peter Todd, the original developer of OpenTimestamps, and by Harry Halpin, a Senior Research Scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology:

Poster papers, "OpenTimestamps: Securing Software Updates Using the Bitcoin Blockchain"
It is part of the book "Financial Cryptography and Data Security" 21st International Conference, FC 2017, Sliema, Malta, April 3-7, 2017, Revised Selected Papers. I hope this new paper adds to the previous documents and it is favorably evaluated to consider OpenTimestamps as notable for a Wikipedia article.--FrankAndProust (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NASDAQ states on the bottom of the republished Bitcoin Magazine article: "The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc." That paper with Peter Todd as a co-author doesn't add to notability either since it's not independent Џ 00:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can be considered independent within reason. AFAIK, the publisher (Springer) is not closely affiliated with OpenTimestamps, which is anyway an open-source project to manage decentralized proofs of existence. The fact that Springer, a firm with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, agrees to publish this study on a book of revised selected papers, assists on the notability to the subject.--FrankAndProust (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI here is a recent reference from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00447-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:606:AE44:2848:EC71:1414:271E (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more which appears to be peer reviewed; the reviewers specifically asked for OpenTimestamps to be mentioned: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29167732/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:606:AE44:2848:EC71:1414:271E (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the Nature ref. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in a major blockchain-related news site: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoins-blockchain-timestamping-standards-face-off/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:605:3FE1:B1B3:FB2:6C7E:D1F6 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ... Per a scan of scholar citations and arguments above and importance of timestamps/security.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distracted boyfriend meme[edit]

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

Are we for real?

I am usually open to adding topics that were traditionally unencyclopedic to Wikipedia, but this? It's not Pepe the Frog or even Wojak, it's just your average fad that held for a few months and now is mostly gone...

Are we playing a substitute of KnowYourMeme now? And if this should pass the notability checklist then where are the limits? When does a meme become important enough to be featured as a standalone article on Wikipedia?

P.S. I am quite shocked noone has proposed deleting this page before, or even flaunted such action.. In fact, the talk page of the article is entirely blank... Openlydialectic (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This wasn't just your regular flash-in-the-pan meme. It's significant in that it showed a shift to object-labeling memes. It also has lots of sources to meet WP:GNG. ^Falling_Gravity 06:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep. Article easily demonstrates notability and the meme was making headlines just a few months ago, so not "mostly gone" as the nom suggests. PC78 (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has continued coverage and significance. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently sourced. Bus stop (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The talk page for the article is not entirely blank, as the nomination claims; it records the appearance of the article at DYK. Pepe the Frog and Wojak appeared at DYK too but the article in question beat them, getting more views than both combined... Andrew D. (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet meme. What we have here is a valuable example that illustrates this type of meme. It has a well documented life cycle, spinoffs, backlash, all that. But currently Internet meme is vague and overly generalistic. It needs at least one section that covers an example in full detail. Over at Distracted boyfriend meme we have a kind of thinly-written article that struggles to stand on its own, and will probably always struggle to rise much further beyond a C-grade not-a-stub. Size after a merge is no issue: even if no overlap were eliminated in a merger, 2,000 words + 1,000 words is only 3,000 words, far below any rule of thumb maximum. Put the two together and you get one article with some meat to it, which can mention in passing specific memes like Pepe, surgery on a grape, etc, while going deep into one of them in order to produce an article of substance. No amount of copy editing is going to turn either of the two in to a GA, but merge the best of them, and with a little work we'd have something good. Just because a topic passes GNG doesn't mean we have to maintain a separate page. Often the encyclopedia is just better if we don't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the Internet meme article isn't relevant here, see WP:RELART. wumbolo ^^^ 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is relevant. Merging is relevant to AfD, and the merits of a merge depend on the two articles in question, and the merits of the resulting third article. See WP:MERGEREASON. WP:RELAR is irrelevant. I never claimed there is a content fork, and so refuting that is a red herring. You're entirely free to disagree with my view that a merge is the best choice. If you have sound arguments against merging, please feel free to share them. But you have no basis to invalidate my opinions this way. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Solid Keep. Highly notable photograph whose meme has been covered by sufficient significant independant quality sources. Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For an article of this type, the sourcing and detail of what has gone into it is unlike most meme articles and is overall great. Still being used plenty today, likely will continue to be used in the future. Nate • (chatter) 05:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to this debate because I wanted to find out about this meme via Wikipedia. It's had plenty of serious news coverage, which is cited in the article. Alarichall (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Time magazine [29], CNN [30], and others give it significant coverage. WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 12:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability supported by secondary sources. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Béa[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:MUSICBIO, not enough sources as of now to establish notability. WP:TOOSOON PlotHelpful (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple christian music reliable sources as shown in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Considering the in-article sources: New Release is a weak-fail of Sig Cov; CCM is purely an interview so fails Sig Cov, PRWeb obviously isn't independent/reliable. The Christian Beat is a good pair of sources, but is from the same source. Given that, New Release, I think a WK is appropriate, but a neutral or WD might also suit as it currently is. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on poor coverage. Both keep votes above cite the quality of The Christian Beat as a reliable source, but the article from that source basically paraphrases content from the About section of the subject’s own website ( https://www.laurenbeamusic.com/about/) mixed in with standard new release information. I'm not saying it isn’t third party coverage, but it does appear to be lazy in establishing anything other than what this subject has to say about herself. Investigating the website further, it appears to be a self-described “up and coming” non-professional volunteer effort with the goal to become an important voice in covering the Christian music scene, but as of now it appears to be mostly a venue for passing off rephrased press releases as reporting and volunteer reviews. Has it been source reviewed yet? If I’m wrong, I’ll consider changing my i-vote. CCM magazine, on the other hand, is a good source, but this coverage—an interview—isn’t. Other sourcing problems are pointed out by Nosebagbear (talk) above. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ShelbyMarion: hi, Christian Beat is included in this list of christian music reliable sources Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, regatds Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I see The Christian Beat was entered as a reliable source on 16 September 2015 without any evidence of having first—-or since—undergone a source review. (A word search in the reliable sources discussions confirm this.) I’m still sticking with my delete vote; while the site may contain reliable information, it also seems to be indiscriminate in what they publish, adhering to their mission (per their description: “… to point you to music…”) of promoting anything and everything Christian music related. Considering this particular reference essentially rephrases content from the subject's website, regardless of a third parties involvement to me it doesn’t come across as a significant example of notable coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The account that created this page (Lyvcreative) seems to have only been created to promote this individual. This page is her only contribution on Wiki and the individual is not notable. Based on the account edit history I believe this is just an individual self promotiong. I vote Strong Delete. Theweekndeditor (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Von Briesen & Roper[edit]

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

Article version nominated for deletion

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Unable to find in-depth independent coverage in RS. WP is not a business directory. MB 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent content added from external sources. Please advise of additional specific changes to avoid deletion. Rules of Engagement for similar biz types seem selectively enforced. Bbcaraher 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC) — Bbcaraher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia has few actual rules. However, the Wikimedia Foundation does have terms of service that prohibit undisclosed paid editing, which includes editing on behalf of an employer or client. Given the timing and specificity of your arrival and edits, I recommend that you review the WP:COI policy and take any appropriate action. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources reliable but "local" - I've done some work on the article, cleaning up the existing citations and adding others, but I've had no luck finding national or international sources to support the article. That's not a reason to delete, though. See this link for a diff between my last edit and the version nominated for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Von_Briesen_%26_Roper&type=revision&diff=881356678&oldid=881308136&diffmode=source . --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per User:K.e.coffman. The article states "regional, national and international practice" but many law firms have national and international connections. This is just providing yellow page coverage and advertising on larger law firms of which there are probably multiple hundreds in the U.S. alone and likely thousands worldwide. Otr500 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medio Oriente[edit]

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

All the info in this article is completely bogus and was created by a user with this article as his/her only claim to fame. Medio Oriente refers to the Middle East in Spanish. BTW, the Puerto Rico barrio name that comes close to this "Oriente" and article already exists and doesn't need to be merged with this bogus info. Please delete Medio Oriente. Thanks. the eloquent peasant (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ - I nominated this article for deletion. In the article section called "The facts" there are 4 sections listed which do exist but they do not exist in Medio Oriente - which I believe is fictitious name. See page 147 of the U.S. Census here. Typing medio in any U.S. Census document reveals no match. I think what the article has is a bad mix of fact with fiction. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The four sectors mentioned in the Medio Oriente are actually sectors of, and mentioned in Hato Rey Central. Per US Census docs, these sectors are in Hato Rey Central. (The sectors are: Las Monjas, Ciudad Nueva, Floral Park, and Quintana).--the eloquent peasant (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @Level C: nominating an article qualifies as a delete !vote, so I've struck your second !vote. The article is not supported by the one source. I can't find anything that's not on the Middle East. Possible hoax. SportingFlyer T·C 04:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V.--Pontificalibus 14:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made-up hoax article. Britishfinance (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Mercy11 (talk) 03:03, 10 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.

[1] ttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397430/FOIR4341_How_many_people_hold_licences_in_the_UK.pdf

[1]