Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 January 16 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hess[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage that is now required for WP:GNG and my web searches haven't really found anything of note either. Govvy (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should’ve been a speedy delete to me. No indication of importance. Trillfendi (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything that suggests meeting WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Google just turns up passing mentions/social media. — sparklism hey! 09:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This fails WP:GNG entirely.Mgbo120 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not notable with few sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.119.212.93 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found this - an interview on 'People.com' (surely the most reliable source in the English speaking world?), which supports the assertion that he played with 'Skeleton Crew', a band that apparently won Star Search in 1993. It doesn't appear to be the same band that we have an article on at Skeleton Crew (band). This would probably be enough to get the band over the line on WP:NMUSIC (criterion 8 and/or 12), but that would give the band notability, not him. If we had an article on the band, I'd suggest a redirect, so I guess it's a delete. GirthSummit (blether) 17:43, 22 January 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. Sandstein 08:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes[edit]

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

References do not give verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cardei012597: Your nomination does not include links to the prior AFD discussions. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Postdlf: To be completely honest with you, this is my first time nominating an article for deletion. I was almost guaranteed to not get everything. Deb and I nominated this article for its inadequate citations, all drafted by the creator James Rolfe. I want someone else to include the links to the prior AFD discussions. There is no reason why List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes should of been accepted, and for any other discussion to vote to keep it. I do not believe the previous List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes discussions will be useful because they allowed the page to still exist, a page that failed to give verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Postdlf: If there was an earlier deletion discussion, could you send us a link to it? It's my fault if User talk:Cardei012597 got that wrong. Deb (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The history of prior nominations is on the talk page, which the nominator (and you as well, it seems) should have reviewed WP:BEFORE starting this AFD. I think there's also been a failure to review the edit history of the article, as there seems to be a misidentification of the creator (or perhaps I'm just getting confused by the aside regarding unrelated content above); this page was split from the parent article over ten years ago and edited by many different accounts since then. postdlf (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Postdlf: Apparently you are referring to deletion discussions about Angry Video Game Nerd, not about the article that is currently under discussion. Deb (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Postdlf: I just find it contradictory that many wikipedia editors feel that List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is fine, while any attempt to split the page Nostalgia Critic is detested, as they have the same exposure in the media. I do not believe the current situation to keep List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes and remove any list of Nostalgia Critic makes any sense. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you saying you don't actually want this page deleted, but that you want another page included? postdlf (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Postdlf: I just want to know why List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is fine, as the page itself does not have references specifically about the episodes that give verifiable evidence that the web content has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners. I know its a split page, but that should not mean that its ok to not have reliable references. Cardei012597 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your analysis is at best incomplete. All of your comments seemed focused on the current state of the article rather than its potential ("the page itself does not have references" ≠ "no references exist"), which is contrary to deletion and editing policy. There is also no requirement that individual episodes of any notable series be themselves independently notable (i.e., merit their own articles) in order to be listed. The better question is whether this is an appropriate level of detail for coverage of this particular series, on which you have offered no insight so far. postdlf (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • However, Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Programming does say that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone". Surely you don't expect a new editor to offer "insights" that you haven't thought of yourself? Deb (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The policies I'm talking about are WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, as well as WP:BEFORE. See also WP:SPLIT, WP:LISTPURP, and WP:STANDALONE for relevant guidelines here. I don't know what point you're trying to make, but what I expect is everyone to try harder. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's extremely difficult to follow what you are trying to say or understand what you are trying to achieve. If you have an opinion as to whether the article should be kept or deleted, please state it instead of obscuring your meaning with wikijargon. It's basic etiquette. If the new user was familiar with every individual policy, he would be a bureaucrat (and I'm sure you wouldn't like that). If you can't participate constructively in the discussion he is trying to have, in language he can understand, you may as well not be here. Deb (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to get content deleted, you need some foundation in relevant policy and guidelines, understanding of the subject matter, and some basic due diligence on the content's potential and its history here. I've pointed out twice that the past AFDs are listed and linked to on the talk page (which no one but me had looked at, apparently), so why you thought (as you commented above) you had to search for them by title is unclear. I've also linked to the relevant procedure for every step that should be followed before nominating an article for deletion so you and the other editor can educate yourselves, in addition to a number of relevant policies and guidelines that you and they should read and become familiar with (those hyperlinked acronyms are not decorative, and they are mere "wikijargon" only if you have not actually clicked on them and read those pages to understand them and how to apply them). I've even attempted to point the discussion in a direction that would be more fruitful, one more focused on an understanding of the subject matter (which no one has really talked about). Short of writing everyone's comments/arguments for them, I don't know how much more handholding I can do. postdlf (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't bother, especially if you are not going to lodge a vote. Deb (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The AVGN episode list should be kept, following the same merits as traditional television or other notable web series. It was also a notable show on GameTrailers, and having the episodes dates (GT release versus YT release) is very helpful. I'm not a fan of the show for its cussing, but there's no denying that AVGN is one of the leaders in the retro gaming community. I encourage others to find good sources to sustain this episode list. --LABcrabs (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, I see no argument presented that would justify overturning the past consensus on this page that it is an appropriate WP:SPLIT, and no argument at all that is rooted in a demonstrated understanding of the subject (as would be necessary to have a meaningful discussion of the merits of splitting). The episodes are reliable sources for their own content so I don't see an inherent issue with sourcing either. And as the series as a whole is indisputably notable, and the episodes comprise the series, this would then also pass WP:LISTN. There is no need for the episodes to be independently notable such that they would merit their own articles. The whole motivation for the nomination seems to be a new editor complaining about what they think was inconsistent treatment of other content, i.e. WP:WAX. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Postdlf: I love the hypocrisy of experienced editors choices. List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes is fine, while any attempt to split the page Nostalgia Critic is detested, as they have the same exposure in the media. Go ahead, allow list of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes to remain without sufficuent references, but lets all fight to prevent ANY episode list page for Nostalgia Critic. He is just some random guy no one knows, we don't need lists for his reviews, especially the crossover episodes he had WITH AVGN! Whatever, you are supreme leader, what you experienced editors say is always right. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've had no involvement with that other subject; you should be talking to whatever other editor(s) participated in that decision rather than targeting other articles. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell delete useful stuff like this?! are you guys crazy? how will wikipedia fruitition if everything will be deleted?! that doesn't make sense at all!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.18.83 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 03:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a valid content fork. Be it the internet or television, a notable show can have an article listing its episodes if its too long to fit comfortably in its main article. I watch most television shows over the internet from their official websites or various services instead of on a television. These episodes are as long as those made for television would be. Dream Focus 17:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:08, 15 January 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. Sandstein 08:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prien Lake Mall[edit]

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

I could not find any WP:INDEPENDENT WP:SECONDARY sources for this mall. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Regional enclosed shopping malls are notable enough for their own articles. This mall is covered in local newspaper/television sources (such as here). Dough4872 23:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regional enclosed shopping malls are notable enough for their own articles. You are kidding right? Based on what criterion of WP:N to you get that? There are countless completely insignificant malls all over the world. Do we honestly need an article on every mall? Wikipedia is not Yelp. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Enclosed malls are generally the major retail center for a population area and can draw shoppers from miles away. Yes, we don't need articles for every strip mall as they are a dime a dozen in any city or town whereas most smaller cities or towns only have a single enclosed mall. Dough4872 23:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our purpose is not to draw shoppers to big retailers. We are not here to promote (WP:PROMO) products, services, sales, create jobs, fix the economy, etc. Again what part of our guidelines on notability (WP:N) leads you to claim that Regional enclosed shopping malls are notable enough for their own articles.? --David Tornheim (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regional enclosed shopping malls are major landmarks in the cities and towns they are located in, as they attract shoppers from miles around and generate tax revenue and jobs for the community. Malls like these are often covered in secondary sources such as newspapers and television stations as they are a major part of the community they serve. Dough4872 01:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:GEOFEAT: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Even million-sqft malls need secondary sources. The KPLC-TV article is borderline. If the mall is so important, it needs more reliable sources to attest to that. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look through the search results on Google, this mall is covered in secondary sources. The link I provided is just an example. Dough4872 19:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Google search results are filled with store locators, directory/map listings, announcements and store opening and closings. None of this qualifies as significant coverage. The search also yielded one significant article in American Press and a one-paragraph book mention. Other news coverage comes under the routine fight-at-the-mall category. The mall needs multiple significant secondary sources that attest to its importance. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. we've been fighting about these ever since I came to WP 12 years ago. There have been various proposals which never passed, but there seems to be a rough line of between 500,0000b and 1,000,000 sq ft. this is in the middle. the deciding factor for me is the misleading "serves 217,000 shoppers. " It doesn't. It has a demographic area of 217,000 potential shoppers whom it might serve. . As for formal criteria, most of the refs are from the company, DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DGG Thanks for the comment. I was about to ask your thoughts on malls and WP:PROMO. Now I don't have to.  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable mall, not enough coverage in independent, secondary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Without getting into the debate on malls in general, this particular mall seems to be a notable geographic feature. No surprise then that I have found sufficient sources to establish notability, which I have added to the article.--Pontificalibus 10:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references added are brief mentions, routine business coverage and store closings. None of them constitute significant coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Routine business coverage is fine as long it is more than a brief mention. This is because we are aiming to satisfy WP:GEOLAND not WP:NCORP, therefore what constitutes significant coverage is dictated by WP:SIGCOV, not WP:CORPDEPTH. The Lake Charles book clearly highlights the mall's social and economic impact, and we have several sources where the mall "is more than a trivial mention" and is covered "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". This satisfies the WP:SIGCOV neded for WP:NBUILD.--Pontificalibus 14:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Pontificalibus I appreciate the extensive research, and considered changing my vote. However, I am inclined to agree with Gene93k that it is routine business coverage. I don't see it is as WP:GEOLAND--the mall is definitely a business. A number of the references are not WP:SECONDARY:
Secondary:
  • "Prien Lake Mall opens today in Lake Charles". The Eunice News. 13 April 1972. p. 7.
  • Jessica Hutchings. Lake Charles. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 8, 15, 19. ISBN 9781467113281.
  • "Prien Lake Mall experiencing growth with new stores". KPLCTV. 23 October 2013. Retrieved 5 January 2019. -- But this sounds more like an advertisement / WP:PROMO.
Trivial Secondary:
This mall not mentioned at all, hence WP:OR:
Primary (or self-created):
Broken:
If this article does get saved, I intend to delete the WP:OR, WP:PRIMARY and broken link. I would like to hear what others thing about some of the WP:RS that was added.
--David Tornheim (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take you up on the statement that you "don't see it is as WP:GEOLAND--the mall is definitely a business." because I think it's important to look that before taking a view on sources. It is true the mall is a business: the business of renting out a building to multiple retailers. This does not mean that is not also a place, a geographic feature that is a local landmark. Indeed, WP:GEOLAND specifically includes commercial developments. There are even plenty of non-commercial geographic features that are run as a business, for example charging for entry. This does not mean they should be judged under WP:CORPDEPTH.
For WP:GEOLAND the bar is lower because Wikipedia also functions as a gazetteer. GEOLAND states "sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability". This is the depth of coverage required. It is more than a trvial mention but not much more.--Pontificalibus 20:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Malls receive local coverage as a local collection of businesses but they are certainly not automatically notable, and I don't see substantive, external, non-routine coverage. Redirect to List of Simon Property Group properties. Reywas92Talk 21:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content is important for wiki geographical purposesMgbo120 (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on it being a enclosed regional mall with large anchors make it more than a WP:MILL shopping center found everywhere. MB 02:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Mgbo120 on geographical purposes.--JAMillerKC (talk) 02:25, 23 January 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) power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrid Holmwood[edit]

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

Not a notable person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathrogers7 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for Keep, and the article has good sourcing now. Did you read the sources you linked? The first one is a sentence, IBTimes and Artnet are simply her name, and she is not even mentioned in the Forbes and GQ links. There are lots of good sources, but not the ones you linked to. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes i did read them, i included the above sources to show that the exhibition itself was significant, and with Holmwood being a part of it adds to her notableness, have added the words "it was" to my "keep" above and apologise for any confusion. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to the nominator I don't think it was all that clear from a cursory search; I'd never heard of Artforum and I wasn't sure it was reliable source until I found its Wikipedia page. Qwfp (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summer 2019 (Kylie Minogue)[edit]

Summer 2019 (Kylie Minogue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous PROD for this article was removed by an editor without comment. Per WP:NTOUR a concert tour must have media coverage as an event in its own right, beyond just basic announcements of dates, and per WP:TOOSOON it is simply too soon for a stand-alone article on this tour. It can be mentioned briefly at the singer's article. Also note that the tour has no official name. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The discussion indicates sufficient sources for Keep, but clearly there is concern about the article becoming (again) engorged with trivia. That type of content question is not an issue for AfD to resolve. Editors who are worried about this should watchlist the article and edit to maintain an appropriate scope for the content. RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FaZe Clan[edit]

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

Huge article. I didn't go through all the 200+ references but it looks like there is nothing that would match our standards, only blogs, twitter, youtube etc. My search in a news database also did no yield substantial results, just mentioned in a couple of minor pieces about others. wikitigresito (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reduced it down to what could be reliably sourced just from the article text. That... that was much more than expected. That said there are plenty of sources for this article. I'm in the realm of keep. --Izno (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep following Izno's edits. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. FaZe Clan doesn't have a blog or a website that yields news. FaZe Clan announces news through their social media. Krafko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic appears to be in line with WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My changes were reverted by DaKrafko. DaKrafko, you need to provide reliable sources which are independent of the topic to support an article. Your version of the article is not appropriate. I will insist on deletion of the article if you do not revert yourself. --Izno (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dissident93 and Mgbo120: In case the above comment influences your opinion. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Izno: I also support full deletion if the reverted information returns. 95% of this info belongs on Liquidpedia or some other site and not here. We already have WT:VG consensus against listing rosters in these pages, but this just strengthens the need for a full esports MOS even more. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Which sources aren't reliable for example? The ones in history, members, etc? Because I added lots of sources to history. Krafko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • YouTube and Twitter are not reliable. There are others that are not reliable also that I removed in my revision. --Izno (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is an excessive amount of inappropriate information on the page (and it's a target for troublesome edits to that information); I agree that information such as full membership lists and detailed competition results, when sourced only to their Twitter account should be removed. I don't see a good reason to delete this article entirely. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone please point be to the independent reliable sources supporting the article? Also, if we keep the piece, it needs a substantial trim and not a detailed history including 292 (!!!) references wikitigresito (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wikitigresito: I provided those sources in my original comment. --Izno (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean the version of the article at this permalink? Thanks for your work. I think your version of the article could be acceptable and pass WP:GNG, although it is a close call, because only the Guardian reference is of "highest quality" and not exclusively about the clan. wikitigresito (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed that version, as well as the sources identified in the WP:VGSE, which is [7]. --Izno (talk) 12:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oh dear, almost the entire article is sourced to YouTube videos and Twitter (nearly 300 references!). You need secondary RS coverage, and these aren't it. The article needs a rewrite, I'd be inclined to delete it and start over if there is no improvement. Hzh (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STEM Fellowship Journal[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded by article creator after adding a press release and "profiling" by Publons. PROD reason stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Normally I would consider relisting for a discussion with only a couple of commenters, but the evidence brought forward already strongly suggests a hoax rather than the sort of marginal notability that may need further vetting. RL0919 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Godofredo Regalado[edit]

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

I can't find confirmation that this writer meets any of the criteria listed at WP:CREATIVE. I came up empty handed when I tried to find reliable sources despite using a number of combinations of the subject's name and works. When you search the book title that supposedly "achieved critical acclaim and international fame" (i.e. Pequeña Infancia de la Niña Mariana), there are precisely three hits, Wikipedia and two mirrors. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I'm going to go so far as to say that I suspect this is a nearly ten-years-idle hoax article, created in 2009 by a drive-by contributor with no other impact on the project. Nothing in this article appears anywhere. Searches for the putative subject's name, in various combinations with his country or professions offer nothing but obvious false positives. His internationally famous book? Nothing. The "movement" he co-founded? Nothing. There are quite a few people named "Federico Gude" but none with any connection to reporting on Salvadorean literature. Living in the Street is a challenging search term, but I can't find any evidence that there was ever a Chilean magazine by that name. Lengua larga (literally: long tongue) is a Spanish metaphor for gossip, so it's at least a plausible name for a periodical. However, there's no evidence of a Revista Lengualarga with that precise name, anywhere. Indeed, the only magazine named Lengua Larga predating this article's creation for which I can find any evidence at all is a 1980s Uruguyan erotic magazine... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was pretty much my conclusion as well. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Ponyo unearthed a good one here! This was tagged as perhaps not notable and for lack of sources the day it was created, it only took us 9.5 years for someone to actually read it! I wonder why it was created. Perhaps there is a Carlos Godofredo Regalado that this was intended to be a joke about. However, hopefully, not the one which is the subject of this March 2010 poem, which, as translated to English, says: [8]

what you waiting for

What are you waiting for
What are you waiting for
carlos godofredo regalado muñoz
to kill you once and for all
to go to sleep once and for all

it's too late.

--Milowent • hasspoken 13:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not really address the notability / sourcing issues. Sandstein 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regional at Best (album)[edit]

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

I am so tired of this perennial recurrence. Regional at Best is protected and this is the same content that was there when it was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional at Best. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I understand that the article isn't in great shape right now, but the article for their first album isn't much better. If their first album is notable enough to have a article, then this one should be too. A lot of people are working on the article right now, so just let editors improve the article before you try to delete it. Bowling is life (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that it's not in great shape, it just does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (which is what WP:GNG requires). It didn't when the last two deletion discussions occurred, and it still doesn't. The one review it had was a user review. The rest are brief mentions in discussions about the band. It also does no meet WP:NALBUM, so the album does not deserve an article. There are plenty of albums by notable artists that do not have articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 05:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 05:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 05:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I tried to help this editor and move the page to correct disambiguation, without realizing that Regional at Best is currently SALTED following a 2017 AFD. I suggest Speedy Delete, warn the editor for repeated creations (See also Regional at Best(album) and their page creation log). -- ferret (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack significant coverage and hard to find any professional review - reviews found are either user-generated [9] or of uncertain quality [10]. Fails WP:NALBUM. Hzh (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 11:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The album is by a notable band but the album is definitely not notable enough to merit its own article, and from the looks of things, it appears that it's going to just be a stub if it stays here, no one is bothering to improve it. EthanRossie2000 discuss 17:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this article should stay on Wikipedia. Twenty One Pilots are a big enough band now and this album is very well known by their fanbase. Since the band is big enough and all their other albums have articles on their own, I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted. More information can definitely be added to the article if it is to stay. BigChungusOnVinyl discuss 18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of "big" (I'll say "notable") bands who have albums that are not listed on Wikipedia because notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Each work needs to have sources to show that the work is notable. That's what we've been saying and that is the only reason for any article to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but there are other bands who are LESS known than Twenty One Pilots that have albums that are less known than Regional at Best that have their own page, such as Matt and Kim's self-titled debut, which, might I add, isn't on streaming services either. BigChungusOnVinyl discuss 18:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other stuff exists that shouldn't and it's no reason to keep this article. If you'd like to contact me outside of this discussion, I'd be happy to review the list of articles you don't think should exist. Stick to showing how this work meets either WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I personally thought this article had been deleted so I started working on a draft to recreate it. I have plenty of information with citation that I will add to the page as soon as I have finished writing. I do agree that at the current time of writing that it needs more infomation and I am willing to add to it. (Godhatessonny (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
    • Information isn't the issue, it's where it meets NALBUM or whether it meets GNG, which it doesn't. Both of these are linked multiple times above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am very sorry for not reading carefully, these things happen. I personally wish the article wasn't up for deletion but I will try find stuff that makes it meet NALUM and/or GNG. If I can't find anything than so be it. Sorry for wasting you time. Godhatessonny (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm leaving this here in case my prior comment wasn't clear as a delete !vote. WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG don't appear to be met, and the article should not have been created besides, as it's true article name at Regional at Best is salted following the last AFD. I'm not sure why this keeps getting relisted. The keeps don't have any policy behind them, starting off with an inherit argument followed by a "the band is big" argument. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As much as I love TOP and RAB, this is a non-notable album by a notable band (didn't sell many copies and most of the songs are on Vessel anyway). We already have enough details about RAB on the TOP Wiki page and this article is likely to remain a stub. MikeOwen discuss 21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of population centers by coordinates[edit]

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

Fails WP:SALAT. It's too broad, as every city in the world would have to be included. Also, just as an example Eureka and Nord are not even villages, much less population centers. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think this fails WP:SALAT. It's a list you would expect to find in a print almanac, and other sources cover this so it's not WP:OR such as [11] or [12]. I do think it could be cleaned up a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 21:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list and offers nothing more than what could be provided in Northernmost settlements and Southernmost settlements. Ajf773 (talk) 07:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I merged List of population centers by latitude and List of population centers by longitude to this since they were basically identical, and then removed all "population centers" (which includes research bases apparently) with populations under 1000 people. That was reverted for unclear reasons, exemplifying the indiscriminate nature of this list. The reverter claimed it's because people use the list to see what the northernmost and southernmost places are, but that only highlights how indiscriminate this is by listing a handful of tiny villages but not other, larger polar settlements (and there are other articles for that). Anyway, I don't see the value of a page that simply lists coordinates of a huge number of random places since that's not really something people need to sort by. I fail to see why this list should be on Wikipedia because infoplease.com and priceoftravel.com have their own indiscriminate listings of coordinates, no one claimed this was OR... Maybe others can propose including coordinates at List of largest cities or something (List of United States cities by population has it). Reywas92Talk 19:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is discriminate, it's just not properly defined. The lede says it's a "list of cities," but the title calls it a "list of population centers." You also have northernmost settlements. I don't think it's correct to say people use this just for northernmost/southernmost purposes, either. It helps you identify spatial relationships between cities on different latitudes. The article should be kept, moved to "List of cities by coordinates," and any row with less than a certain population threshold removed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the purpose and focus on this list is not clear beyond its duplication of the two articles noted by the two !votes immediately above this one. It is diffiult to determine if a given city should or should not be included on the list.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It sounds like people's main complaint is that the list is not complete, given its definition, and hence that it becomes arbitrary what is in the list and what isn't. There are two ways of handling this: One is by reducing the scope of the list to only larger places. The other is to expand the list to make it more complete. For example, I would like to see it renamed to "List of settlements", and covering the coordinates and population of all settlements in Wikipedia. Why do I prefer that to plain deletion or the reduction in scope? Because the end result is more useful: With population present in the list, anybody can apply whatever population threshold they wish themselves. However, if people think such a list would be too hard to make and maintain, then my second choice would be to reduce it to a list of cities like SportingFlyer suggests. Amaurea (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So your way to fix the arbitrariness is by setting an arbitrary cutoff size? Your way to address the length issue is to make it longer by including not only cities, but anything down to settlements? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An arbitrary cutoff size (by defining either "population centers" or "cities") would, in fact, make the list discriminate... SportingFlyer T·C 07:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the exact reason we don't have a List of cities - it is necessarily indiscriminate. The information is on other pages (every article on a city contains lat/long). If there were some need for this categorization, pages such as 18th parallel north could include a list of cities on (or near) that parallel. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a job for WikiData / SPARQL. --Slashme (talk) 06:59, 23 January 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.

@Sandstein: I see you deleted the talk page but the article itself was missed. Cheers, Reywas92Talk 06:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Dalbey[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR. He hasn't won any major prizes which would be an auto-keep, he, not his work, have received much significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and the critical acclaim his works have received is sparse. SITH (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 16:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 16:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Creation of a single-use editor. Plainly promotional. The sole reference leads to a 404 page. Notability not asserted and nowhere in sight. --Lockley (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion that the subject meets notability criteria; obviously promotional article. --Slashme (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Google search uncovers few third party profiles. Here's an article in a religious publication where he's mentioned, but he's not the subject. [[13]]. I also hunted for reviews of his books in notable reliable sources and couldn't find any besides this one on the Peace Corps site, not one known for its book reviews. [[14]]. His bio says he's a NY Times best selling author but I can't find any sources to back this up, or any coverage in the NY Times. This not-that-notable source says his book Healing the Masculine Soul pioneered the men's Christian movement [[15]], but there's not enough coverage overall to meet WP:AUTHOR, let alone WP:GNG. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 08:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Hague[edit]

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

Biography, not sourced well enough to clear the notability bar, of a person notable only as mayor of a small village which has long since been annexed as a city neighbourhood. This basically dispatches her work in politics (i.e. the stuff that's relevant to whether she's notable enough for an article or not) with simple statements that she held political roles, while saying literally nothing about any significant or noteworthy accomplishments in those roles, and instead concentrates much more strongly on purely biographical details that have no bearing on her notability either way -- and it's referenced to just two pieces of local media coverage: one obituary, and one article about her initial election as mayor. But that's not enough coverage to make a smalltown mayor special, because every mayor of anywhere can always show at least as much coverage as that. And being the first woman to hold an otherwise non-notable role is not a notability freebie that automatically makes her special, either -- if this had made her the first woman to get elected as a mayor anywhere in Canada, then that would mean something, but she was neither the first in Canada (see Barbara Hanley) nor even the first in Ontario (see Barbara Hanley again, and then take a side trip through Marjorie Hamilton and Charlotte Whitton before coming back here...and that's just who I know about), but merely (tied for) the first in her own county. That's not significant enough to make a woman mayor a special notability case on the basis of being a woman, but the sourcing here isn't strong enough to make her notable on the basis of being a mayor either. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --Enos733 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This mayor has not been given significant coverage in a reliable source. ―Susmuffin Talk 02:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - served as member of the executive council for Metro Toronto, which was a superset of the City of Toronto, had the same geographical boundaries as the later City of Toronto and controlled policing, planning and other functions for the total Toronto area. --Big_iron (talk) 02:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-megacity Metro Council isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of enough media coverage to get her over WP:NPOL #3 — the Metro-to-Megacity relationship doesn't work that way under our inclusion criteria. We don't care what the boundaries of the unit became 35 years after she left office, we care what the boundaries of the unit were while she was in office — so metro councillors in the 1960s don't get retroactively massaged into "global city" councillors just because metro got amalgamated into the city in 1998. She has to clear the notability standard for county councillors, which still requires a lot more media coverage about her than this shows even now, and does not turn into a "Toronto City Councillor" just because metro became city 25 years after she was already dead. Bearcat (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemrah Ahmad[edit]

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

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. Saqib (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be general agreement that the subject is notable, but that the article recently has been hijacked to promote a particular POV. There is also agreement to revert to a previous stable version. How to handle the POV editing can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bimetric gravity[edit]

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

Propaganda for Jean-Pierre Petit. Yann (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but revert This used to be a decent article as recently as last month, before it got taken over by all the Jean-Pierre Petit stuff. I'd propose just reverting the article back to the December 7, 2018 version. Red Act (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert per the above. The topic is legitimate and notable, going back to work by Einstein's collaborator Nathan Rosen in the 1940s. Recent changes have taken the article downhill, but deletion is not the answer. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and revert per the above. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is the most recent version that looks reasonable (2018-12-07). XOR'easter (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but improve the content. Or create another page dedicated to the Janus model and split the content. There are many different possibilities, why do you want to delete it? The content proposes valid references only, the subject is relevant, there is public attraction to this model. This is big science, and should be respected.--80.215.97.25 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — 80.215.97.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep and revert per the above. The topic is notable and deserves an article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the User:Yann, a french guy, has contributed today to the french page related to Bimetric model https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le_cosmologique_bi-m%C3%A9trique with asking questions and for more references, instead of asking for deletion of the page. Why User:Yann has not do the same on english Wikipedia ? Is there a conflict of interest ? --80.215.97.25 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert - seems a good option for this notable topic. The article has indeed changed a lot since a couple of months ago and I see the French version is currently the subject of an edit war. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable ?. Several people are saying the topic is notable, but they aren't arguing about this opinion. Perhaps, the discussion should start there. Pldx1 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I think the sourcing in the last decent version of the article is adequate to establish notability, and plenty of scholarly references exist. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, there are plenty of primary sources, i.e. article written by people trying to invent yet another magic formula to save the phaenomena. But the question is to find secondary and reliable sources that would evaluate all these formulas. A proof of Kepler/Newton formulas was the prevision of Uranus. A proof of the atomic model was the discovery of Helium in the sun, before having it at our fingertip on Earth. A proof of the group machinery was the prevision of the Omega particle. And so on. But seeing the state of the wp:article, it seems that we have a lack of reliable evaluations of what is proposed. Pldx1 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pldx1, you are confusing reporting published facts into WP (what is the goal) and only reporting the scientific proof into WP (what you mean). Should I remind you fringe theories can be described on WP? --2A04:CEC0:100C:F090:2165:8398:D861:423D (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peer-reviewed scientific articles that evaluate an idea proposed by someone else are secondary sources, as far as our purposes here are concerned. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no. Pldx1 doesn't mean that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:CEC0:1000:1770:FD1E:B823:F225:887F (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I could agree to keep it, but not in this state. All the promotion and unsource stuff needs to be removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

R.DatchanaMoorthy[edit]

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

This was once created and deleted. The user try to redevelop it with a different page name. here

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Legion of Super-Heroes members#"Bronze Age" members. Randykitty (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quislet[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 10 years, no indication of notability. Fails WP:NFICTION. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At worst, merge with List of Legion of Super-Heroes members. Article can be sourced to the relevant comicbook issues, which appears to be the standard for articles of this type. DS (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 15 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Choe[edit]

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

I have serious doubts the subject meets WP:NBIO. The only possible notable achievement may be having a high rank (CAO) in a major NGO, but still, CAO is not CEO, and I don't think CAOs are auto-notable. There is some in-depth coverage, ex. [16] in Crosscut.com, but even that one is half-interview, and that's about it - other stories about her like [17] seem nearly total self-authored per WP:INTERVIEW if not worse as in press releases ([18]). The Crosscut award ([19]) also doesn't seem sufficient for notability. Maybe if all of those are added together, but still, this is a borderline case that would benefit from further comments from the community. Personally I don't see sufficient evidence of notability, so my nom vote is 'delete'. Thoughts? PS. The creator of this article, Ottawahitech is indef-blocked, with a note saying that nearly a 1000 of their articles have been deleted. Not that it should prejudice us... much. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. You are leaving out (and the article as it stands barely mentions) her main notability. She served two terms on the 9-member Seattle City Council (and was, by the way, the first Korean American ever to serve on the council). Because the city council is only 9 people for a city of over half a million, I'd say that any elected member of the council is de facto notable (not so sure about people appointed to fill out a term who don't run for reelection, but that's not relevant here). Further, as mentioned at https://crosscut.com/2016/10/martha-choe-lifetime-achievement-2016-courage-awards, she was director of the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (later Department of Commerce), the state-level equivalent of a cabinet position. In short: this article needs a bunch of work, but she is certainly notable. - Jmabel | Talk 16:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL does not suggest city councilors are auto-notable. Her bio is, as I said, a lot of near misses on notability. Too local / low level of a politician, executive, received awards or coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor being the first Korean American to hold the office? Nor later being head of a statewide gov't department? Are you saying that even the Crosscut source I cited still doesn't bring her up to notability? - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crosscut.com is a good source, but it is regional so it's a fairly weak argument for notability. It would be useful to show that her work is discussed in academic or national publications. And also to hsow that in one of her various positions she had a significant or enduring impact on something. User:Jmabel, it may be that there is notability here, but someone would have to do the work to WP:HEYMANN by showing coverage and/or impact - preferably both.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Not unless there was widespread media coverage of the fact. We have a lot of immigrant groups in the U.S., and 50 states. So, no, the first Greek-American college president in Illinois, or the first Cuban-American city council member in Jacksonville would not be not inherently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC) My bad.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are saying that "first in the United States" is no more notable than "first in Jacksonville"? - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources in the article do not meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG. City councillors do not get automatic notability grants per NPOL, though they are more likely to meet WP:GNG for larger cities. I don't care if my vote is disregarded if better sourcing is later demonstrated. SportingFlyer T·C 19:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Delete. City councilor in Seattle, a moderately large city, does not confer automatic notability. she has been written up, but only in regional publications like Seattle Magazine and Northwest Asian Weekly. I don't think it's quite enough. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC). withdrawing to allow time for a closer look at sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. searches on "Martha Choe" + "first korean" bring up WP:RS articles from which a decent article can be built.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The recent additions by Peaceray and Jmabel make it pretty clear that Choe meets the notability requirement.--ragesoss (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:POLOUTCOMES, specifically the national press coverage point. SounderBruce 06:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Positions and coverage are notable, as mentioned above. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can see how looking at the versions of this article prior to this month you'd think it looked like the resume of an obscure corporate executive, but the notability is not now obvious. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upperstall.com[edit]

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

No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The Time magazine citation in the article is a passing mention of an insignificant distinction ("honorable mention" among author Richard Corliss's favorite movie sites of 2004). I wasn't able to find better sources outside of the article. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One source from 14 years ago does not point to notability. Unless more recent sources are found this is not a notable site. Playlet (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 13:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar (physical therapy)[edit]

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

Non-notable. All sources are minor mentions, often as part of a list. Only new coverage since this page was created relates to a run he made for state rep, and charges filed that were later dropped. Found this at the bottom of the new pages feed, hadn't been reviewed for whatever reason? valereee (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. And Valereee, even though it was created in December 2016, it was a draft until January 15, 2019, when it was moved to mainspace. So even though it looks old, it was just moved today.Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see! Thanks, I was wondering why it would languish so long! valereee (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage; fails WP:NPOL. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here satisfies WP:NPOL — treasurers of smalltown chambers of commerce and non-winning candidates are not of encyclopedic interest. But the referencing is mostly primary sourcing that doesn't bolster notability at all, except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a Huffington Post article about something else, so he's not even close to passing WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas ArtsPartners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Reads like a business profile entry. SITH (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU (Talk) 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I’ve looked at this article many times trying to figure out what to do with it. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article reads as not notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Marchand[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as the mayor of a midsize city which is not large or prominent enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on all of its mayors just because they exist. The only reference cited here at all, however, is a single news article in the local community weekly newspaper about an all-candidates election debate, which certainly mentions Marchand but isn't about him to any non-trivial degree. Mayors of cities in this size bracket are not "inherently" notable, so the key to getting them over the bar is not just to single-source their existence to one local news article -- in a city this size, the ticket to notability for a mayor is to show a depth and range and volume of sourcing that marks him out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other mayors of cities this size, not just single-sourcing his existence the way absolutely every mayor of anywhere can always do. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we can find articles on candidates for public office at this level discussing their views for virtually every mayor. Not all mayors are notable, and we would need lots more sources to show that Marchand is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have found quite a few sources too add, and am not finished with it yet. That said, unsure how quality the coverage would be considered, in terms of whether the press is too local. 66.198.222.67 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the information the IP has added. This is due to the WP:GNG, as there are several newspaper sources about him being awarded the title "Graffiti Fighter of the Year" in 2016 by Zero Graffiti International (google search for "John Marchand graffiti award"). Also there are currently 5 separate sources which have been added since the AfD was opened (and more could be added) on his work against Graffiti generally. I can't access most of them as I am in the UK and because of the GDPR most newspaper websites in the US have blocked the UK on the grounds of compliance with the GDPR) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 09:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete every single source is your run of the mill local political coverage. The graffiti thing only appears to have been a local story. He fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable local politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:48, 20 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Little[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Only had a handful of minor roles before retiring. Could be turned into a redirect to her husband's page (Brett Cullen). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,she had minor roles, Alex-h (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Rebecca.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Rebecca. I also found a NYT review of her work for Demon Lover. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:50, 15 January 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. Ignoring the SPAs and possible (meat/sock)puppets. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alhan Gençay[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. This page has been speedily deleted three times: March 2015, January 2018, February 2018. A PROD was contested, but I believe still fails GNG. The references mention the subject, but do not create adequate notability for the subject: they're references to projects he has worked on or fail as independent (a tweet, a Facebook page, links to the projects themselves). In fairness, the strongest source is likely this one [25] but it's again focused on the project rather than the subject himself. I don't see a way to get to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A journalist is not notable because they've published articles in reliable sources, or been quoted in reliable sources, unless there is significant coverage of them as a subject in multiple reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 20:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without question. 2015 is long ago so not sure what the situation was with that speedy deletion. As for the ones in 2018, I can only imagine it was for a lack of references & citations. I’d only imagine this was the case beacause all the references that are in the current-day article have been written after the dates of those speedy deletions. As it stands currently, I believe there to be a respectable amount of references.

It’s hard to pin down exactly what he does, but it seems to be a mix of journalism, comedy and acting. I thought that the most sensible thing for me to do before moving this article into the mainspace would’ve been to compare him to other VICE Hosts (something that he’s most notable for). To be completely honest, comparing this article to those, this ones comes out on top. It’s very comprehensive and fleshed out.

I’d recommend you go over the strongest source that you mentioned. ([26]) While I do agree that it’s about the project, I would stress that it’s his film that they’re writing about. He fronts it as an on-screen correspondent. The source is an article of an Evening Standard interview with him; he gave the journalist exclusive information about the documentary which without interviewing him wouldn’t have been possible to write. He’s quoted several times and the first photo in the article is a photo of him. It’s an interview and he is most certainly a main focus of it. To say it’s solely focused on the project and not the subject himself isn’t wholly true, I believe.

Moreover, I’m not sure how you’ve reached the decision that he’s "failed GNG & WP:NACTOR".

Upon reviewing his IMDb page, there does seem to be significant roles in multiple notable films and certainly television shows, including EastEnders, The Legend of Dick and Dom and Nuzzle and Scratch.

Another one of the criteria listed on WP:NACTOR is for individuals to have “a large fan base or a significant “cult” following”. His Twitter and Instagram following, along with the views acquired on his series, does show this to be the case.

I do honestly believe you were rushed to nominate this article for deletion because of the fact that it was thrice speedily deleted, which is completely understandable. But after carefully checking sources and references I think this is a solid article. I wouldn’t have moved it into the mainspace otherwise :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennaAlford (talk • contribs) 23:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Totally agree with the above. I believe that with my further updates this is a strong article. comment added by P archibald (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the two "keep" comments above are from the creators of the article. P archibald created this instance of the article. JennaAlford created a version that was speedily deleted in 2018 and moved this incarnation from draftspace into mainspace.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - creators of the article are allowed to vote themselves. Not sure why that was mentioned. Would've been more productive if you responded to their comments, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord77Street (talk • contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and the previous unsigned comment was left by a new user with zero other contributions. All three of "P archibald", "Lord77Street" and "JennaAlford" have had issues with their signatures. Quack?49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Fontikov[edit]

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

Promotional unsourced article, not shown to meet WP:NMUSIC. » Shadowowl | talk 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't find anything even for basic verification, which may be because any coverage is in Russian. Should anyone be able to find sources I would be happy to reconsider. --Michig (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as hoax. No credible sources at all. Striking out on "Владимир Фонтиков" as well. No sign of "Lev Arakelov". No aspect of this is verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 06:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Desmond[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Cabayi (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably. I don't think that she "Has released two or more albums ... on one of the more important indie labels", which is the only WP:MUSICBIO criterion that could apply. There are multiple reviews, but most do not seem to be from reliable sources, and many of them sound very alike (and like the wording of this Wikipedia article ...). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing really found in reliable sources beyond event listings. --Michig (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listening Books[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet notability standards. The only secondary source I can find is the Radio 4 interview that is referenced in the article. The rest of the article's references are from the charity's website. I can't find any other secondary sources CircleGirl (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a small charity with worthy aims but I've googled and looked at Gnews and I can't find any significant coverage. The refs in the article are mostly primary. Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 21 January 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. I dislike closing "no consensus", but this was already relisted twice and there clearly is no consensus either way. A discussion of whether nominations for this particular Emmy category confer notability can perhaps be had at a suitable place. If that discussion would conclude it is not enough, this article could be revisited. Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Everitt[edit]

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

No coverage beyond mere-mention in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. While the article includes a very long filmography, almost all of the entries are uncited claims of the subject working as an editor. The subject was also nominated for an EMMY three times for producing the Disney Parks Christmas Day Parade, but never won. The few directorial credits are for short films that do not appear to be themselves notable, and for some television shows and specials of dubious notability (the most notable appears to be The High Court with Doug Benson)–all in all, I don't think this body of work satisfies WP:NDIRECTOR in the absence of solid coverage in reliable sources. Could just be WP:TOOSOON, as the subject's pivot to directorial work only happened a few years ago. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Wouldn't three EMMY nominations satisfy WP:ANYBIO, #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." ? RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My original impulse was that it wasn't a particularly important EMMY and thus didn't warrant recognition on those grounds. However, I just tried to go to the EMMY website, which lists nominees and winners for all awards, and can't seem to find any of the awards that the subject was supposedly nominated for. Unless someone can actually find a source saying that the subject was nominated for these awards (which may not even exist), I'd say it's a moot point. However, if these nominations did in fact occur, I'd be willing to reconsider their notability. In light of the sources found by RebeccaGreen and added to the article, it appears that the subject was nominated as part of a team of two other editors plus a supervising editor. I'm honestly not sure whether that should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO or not and will leave it open to discussion by others. signed, Rosguill talk 01:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)01:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She was an Executive Producer as well as one of several editors in 2014. But I'm not sure either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 03:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 03:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 03:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus talk / contribs 03:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several Emmy nominations (or a single win) satisfies ANYBIO #1, even if they are shared Emmys. Onel5969 TT me 09:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There're fairly obscure Emmy categories, plus they were nominations only, and joint nominations at that. IMO there's not enough cachet in that combination. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep They are Emmys, and she's been nominated three times. In the 'Outstanding Multiple Camera Editing' category it really can't be anything other than a joint nomination, so unless we say that's never notable, being nominated with others shouldn't affect her notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1/4 of a nomination ("Outstanding Special Class Special"?) + 1/3 + 1/4 = 5/6. Less than one full nomination! Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 20 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maurizio Romano[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only passing mentions in TV guides and affiliated entertainment media. I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR. wumbolo ^^^ 17:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 15 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pancakes and Powerslams[edit]

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

Cannot find specific WP guidelines on podcasts, but subject does fail WP:NORG. All the coverage I found is promotional. Rogermx (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most of the sources I found only mentioned them in passing, failing the in-depth criteria. However, it's likely a notable podcast. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most uploads on Instagram[edit]

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

Non-notable list. Fails WP:LISTN. wumbolo ^^^ 10:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense list with no secondary sources cited. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Both listcruft and original research. Ajf773 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence this is a notable list topic. Reywas92Talk 20:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable list lacking any kind of coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While individual numbers are referenced, the list itself is original research. I'm not finding a reliable source that can be used to improve the article. There are a couple of blogs that have top 10 lists but little agreement among them which makes me question the notability or even validity of the topic.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable list. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Fredericks[edit]

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

This is a BLP of a former musician and now a therapeutic counsellor. It has been tagged for notability since 2011. There are no refs in the article just an external link to her personal website. Before is showing nothing on news and some directory links to her album and self published counselling links. Appears promotional. Szzuk (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence provided or found that WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG (or , WP:PROF) can be met. Could probably have been deleted via WP:PROD ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no coverage through Google searches (except a few blogs) or on Newspapers.com, for her or her album. Google Scholar shows only two papers, with no citations. The awards listed are not notable or well-known. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Searches confirm the subject works as an adjunct instructor at Florida International University [27] and provide various listings for her private practice as a therapist, but I am seeing nothing to establish her notability in that respect. Regarding her previous activity as a jazz vocalist and violinist, Allmusic has only a bare listing for her "Timeless" album. Allaboutjazz has a biography, but it is unbylined and appears to have been derived from the album notes as they also appear at CDbaby: these are insufficient for WP:MUSICBIO either. AllyD (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AllyD – All About Jazz allows musicians to write their own biography entries, so you're right: that can't be used. EddieHugh (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet any form of notability. EddieHugh (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent coverage found. Appears to have only had one self-released album. Fails all criteria of WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 13:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core Education & Technologies Ltd[edit]

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

This page has no recent updates over the past 5-7 years, every article is old & no fresh updates, the company has shut down, all the information displayed could mislead people. Nasha316 (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nasha316 (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:08, 15 January 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. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Valcin[edit]

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

Valcin fails WP:NFOOTBALL because he has never played for a team in a fully pro league. He fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sources. Dougal18 (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - article about amateur footballer who once scored two goals as his club, Bobigny, reached the 8th round of the Coupe de France for the first time. That Le Parisien article might qualify as non-routine coverage, but I don't see anything else that suggests the article could satisfy WP:GNG, e.g.,, he isn't even mentioned in Le Parisien's [28] report on the club's 8th round win or report or 0–3 loss in the 1/32-final. Jogurney (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Kok[edit]

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

A philosophy lecturer that spent much of his time at Dordt College. Tagged for notability since 2011. Two primary refs in the article and before not returning much I can see. Szzuk (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He has apparently written or edited several books, but I could only find two reliably published reviews, one for a book he wrote and one for a book he edited. I think that falls a little short of WP:AUTHOR, and no other form of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two books, and two reviews in the same journal, hardly qualifies for notability as an author, and it is hard to tell how he could be considered notable as an academic. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACADEMIC. Hzh (talk) 16:17, 21 January 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) 01:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Erokhin[edit]

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

Reason Porridge (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be a self-promotion of a hobby runner and "wikimedia personality". The athletic achievements are nowhere near notable (for reference, his listed personal best would not even have qualified for this year's Boston Marathon), and as an athlete, the Erokhin clearly does not come close to meeting any of the relevant notability criteria.

I referred to the runner's strava profile to point out that he appears to use this Wikipedia article for self-promotion there. I understand that trolling on one platform may not be a valid reason for deletion here.
Also, if he ran the 1200 km through Sakhalin, why is that not mentioned in the article? The only reference I could find is that he somehow crossed managed to cross it in 20 days, hardly a noteworthy achievement (for comparison, the Appalachian_Trail is about 3 times as long (3500 km), and has been completed in 41 days). Porridge (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one before run through Sakhalin (with such documentation), this is the achievement. The Sakhalin run was held with support of local government and mass media, this was a wide-promoted public action which has value besides marathon record. And Erokhin has made several such actions, not a single one. Yes you may be correct that the article lacked proper mention of it, with such sources, because some data were inserted too early and were not updated later. This is a good reason to raise concerns on talk page, not to nominate for deletion. --ssr (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 20-day run through Sakhalin may be a first, but it is not a notable athletic achievement. As pointed out above, it does not compare to contemporary performances over similar or greater distance by real athletes. Running the length of Sakhalin is an arbitrary choice, and if a runner were the first to run, say, from Lisboa to Paris, from Helsinki to Moscow, or from Sicily to the Brenner pass, it would not make them notable either. Coverage by Russia Beyond does not confer notability. For example, Runners World runs multi-page features on other hobby runners every month - it does not make them notable athletes. Porridge (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, the achievement is not "athletic". Russia Beyond is an example of rare English source, preferable are numerous Russian sources. You seem to judge only for sports, but the subject is not a regular sports competitor (as I said before and you seem to ignore). --ssr (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Statement related to Strava profile has no relation to the activity of the sportsman and is just personal opinion. As for the marathon runner notability criteria, it is not necessary to take part in Boston Marathon to be ultramarathon runner; the person participated in different Russian marathons. Mark Ekimov (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the runner has participated in marathons does not make him noteworthy. I only referred to the Boston marathon as a relatively well-known standard for hobby runners, of course, taking part in the Boston marathon does not confer notability either (10s of thousands of runners do that every year). The runner in question is simply nowhere near notable, has never participated in or qualified for an international championship, has never placed at or won a major race (whether a standard distance or an ultra / trail race), or achieved anything else athletically that would be notable according the standards set by Wikipedia. Porridge (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:01, 15 January 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. Sandstein 14:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Reingold[edit]

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

GNG Fail. Most mentions of her are of the form "Svetlana Reingold, the exhibit's curator, told...", which is an example of someone doing their job, rather than something that would create notability. There are one of two in-depth sources at most, which is not enough to establish GNG. Curator notability is tricky, as they are usually non-notable people organizing exhibitions and collections of extremely notable persons. Curators can certainly be notable, but in this case the coverage does not meet our requirements of having breadth, not being inherited from another subject, and being in-depth. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One in-depth source, a Youtube video and an exhibition description page do not come anywhere near close to meeting WP:ARTIST. Having a high-level art job does nothing for notability; you have to undertake activities that generate coverage, by doing something notable. For comparison, have a look at the career of Hans Ulrich Obrist, who is a hugely notable curator. Or Tatzu Nishi, whose article I have been working on and had little trouble finding 40+ more sources to establish his contribution to the field of public art. Both meet WP:ARTIST by virtue of contributions to the field and extensive coverage. In this case though we have barely more than one in-depth source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube video is from Israli news channel, don't underestimate it please. I've also added the following sources in Hebrew, which are in-depth coverage of her specific work: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Those references are coming from highly reliable Israeli news sources. I am asking you if this may help to persuade you to change your mind. Cheers. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, interviews don't usually count for GNG. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Changing to no opinion per new sources identified. Verbatim interviews do help show that a person is important enough to interview, but they don't help write an article from an independent-source perspective. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
uidhe, I've provided additional references above in hebrew which are not just interveiw, but in-depth coverage of her work. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've also added some additional sources as well as official publication to the article. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me, interviews can contribute to notability if they are substantive not just asking stupid “what’s your favorite color?” questions.Trillfendi (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep curators fall under WP:CREATIVE; notability can be established by the attention given by reviewers and others to the work they do. I added material about exhibitions she has curated.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lots of coverage of her work as a curator. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Clear consensus that the list should be kept. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of video game musicians[edit]

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

Large WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is better served as a category. There is no similar film composer list that would at least give this precedence. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NOTDUP, "better served as a category" is not a valid argument. None of the bullet points at WP:INDISCRIMINATE appear to apply here and it's apparently not indiscriminate either because it clearly only lists musicians that are a) notable enough to have their own article and b) made video game music. Additionally, with the list people can easily see why a certain musician is notable and which games they worked on, something a category can't offer. Last but not least, List of film score composers does actually exist. Regards SoWhy 08:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly not indiscriminate. Passes NLIST. Even if stripped down to the basics (which I'm not advocating for), it's a perfectly reasonable navigational list. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework - I do not believe the list breaks any policies, but I also do not think it serves any purpose in its current state. It does not provide the reader any information nor does it aid in navigation. I think these faults are primarily because there is a large scope of anyone that has worked on video game music, and there are no helpful characteristics to sort by (nationalities, birth/death date, employer). My suggestion: Retitle the article "List of notable video game composers", reduce scope to composers with their own articles (no sound programmers etc.), and include the sortable characteristics I mentioned which would make the list useful. TarkusABtalk 16:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. (Also "There is no similar film composer list" is just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) JOEBRO64 19:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I do see a bit of a notability issue with some of the names listed here, I've prodded one and AfD'ed another, however I feel this list should work. Nothing wrong with having a category also. Govvy (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Tightly enough defined list of notable topics. Already goes beyond what a category provides and has clear scope for improvement. --Michig (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a lot of useless lists on Wikipedia, this is not one of them. Criteria for inclusion is clearly stated and appears to be well adhered to. List entries meet notability guidelines and the list rises above the level of a category.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:55, 17 January 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 Ethnic townships, towns, and sumu of China. Sandstein 14:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic towns of China[edit]

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

Appears to duplicate content of Ethnic townships, towns, and sumu of China, created by the same editor Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Duplication. Also: because uses that horrid Tongyong pinyin for some bizarre reason. FOARP (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lee (artist)[edit]

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

This is the second nomination for the article's deletion (first nomination's result was "The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination." after two votes for Delete and one vote for Keep). The subject does not meet any qualifying criteria of WP:BIO. Note that all references of media coverage of the band Mangchi consist of either trivial coverage or mentions by David Choe and Steve Aoki who are themselves involved in the band (disqualified criteria in WP:MUSIC) and that all references for the subject's podcast were from the podcast itself. MarkH21 (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarkH21 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this is already the second try, it would be helpful to have a bit more input for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources provided in the previous AFD or currently cited in the article sustain notability for Steve Lee. Only two even mention him - and one of those is a press release and the other is a listing on a site that does not appear to be independent from the subject matter. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His claim to fame seems primarily through his brother, which really is insufficient. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:50, 15 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Marshall (writer)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG. She is just the spouse of a former governor who wrote a book that is not particularly popular. Was leaning toward a speedy delete but figured there might be discussion. PrairieKid (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you know that because.... Well, how do you know that? Have you, for example, looked to see how widely her book was reviewed? At her magazine writing career? At news coverage of every house she and her spouse buy or sell? Perhaps a WP:BEFORE search might be in order before dismissing a female writer as "just the spouse of a former governor who wrote a book that is not particularly popular."E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC) (Sometimes I lose patience.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woh, woh, woh. I would just remind you of WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. I did look; or, at least, I looked at what was important. I do not see why the houses she buys and sells matter (not that I find coverage for that anyway) and she has not done much notable writing. Nearly every article I find she is discussed only in relation to her husband or in a niche source because of her book which sold few copies. Perhaps rather than pointedly accusing me of not being diligent, you could instead recommend some sources or information you have found which you believe make her WP:NOTABLE...? PrairieKid (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is a two-way street. After reading your nomination, and before writing that comment, I did a WP:HEYMANN upgrade to the page. More can still be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see enough notability in that article. Thus far, she is Bill Weld's wife. She was married to the son of a Washington Post editor. And she wrote a book and did a book signing in the same location and during the same week as Hillary Clinton. I found but little more than that myself. And none of those point to notability. I genuinely appreciate your work here to save the article--I am just looking for something more. She seems far away from being significant enough. PrairieKid (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, however, WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." In other words, even if all coverage of an individual is of their role qua spouse, the individual can have a free-standing article if coverage is sufficient. Nom appears to not be aware of this policy. Article can certainly be expanded with a discussion of her writing. But Nom and others should be aware that even spouses with no independent achievement, say, Jeanette Rubio, or Todd Palin, can be notable by our standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that moment in the early fall of 2016 when it actually looked not inconceivable that Libertarian Gary Johnson had a shot at the White House? And, therefore, that Leslie Marshall might move into the Naval Observatory. It generated press. We do keep articles about political spouses who get WP:SIGCOV. SIGCOV, in Marshall's case, includes having written a novel that was very widely reviewed. The section on the novel could be expanded from the many book reviews on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. My point, though, was entirely unrelated to WP:INHERITED. -The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR - those are substantial reviews of the book, whether positive or not, plus a substantial article about her as the wife of a candidate. The article can be expanded to include commentary or quotes from the reviews; it should not be deleted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Oh, and yes, WP:BEFORE not done. FOARP (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. lots of info onboard. Mgbo120 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Jose Gutierrez[edit]

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

Article is inadequately too short which does not meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:BLP. Sheldybett (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I done a quick web search and there are a fair amount of results for this player. He has been playing for a long time, I feel the article needs improving, not deleting. Govvy (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search results fall under WP:ROUTINE. It's normal that he appears in tournament entries and such. However these don't demonstrate notability.Tvx1 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet any WP:Nsport or Tennis Project Guidelines. Has he played on the men's ATP tour... no. Has he won a minor league tournament... no. Has he even won a non-notable minor-minor league tournament... nope. He's one of a million wannabe players so far in his career that has no notability except perhaps in few small Canoas newspapers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Has no significant results to prove that he is any more notable than the thousands of other professional tennis players. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly no notability for this player.Tvx1 15:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . No clear info, no references. Fails notability guidelines completelyMgbo120 (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable tennis player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't mean WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG, playing for a long time does not ensure notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirst and Goal podcast[edit]

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

PROD was removed by page's creator. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 02:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC),[reply]
  • Delete This is nothing but a promotion for someone's podcast. Unsourced except for the external link to the podcast, no reliable independent sources found for it and no claim to notability other than its mere existence. Possibly even an A7 speedy. Meters (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The talk page comment and the article edit summary by the article creator This page was created so that there would be no confusion over the name when searching for it in a search engine. speaks to the promotional aspect of this page. Meters (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self promotion? There are many ways to self promote and Wikipedia is not really one of them. With all the social media options out there, Wikipedia should really be a last desperate attempt to promote. I can see that this is a community that is very passionate about the integrity of Wikipedia and I commend you all on that. However, I do not agree that this article was created for self promotion. It was simply created to differentiate itself from other search engine results that may have the same name in the search. Fglavan —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Fglavan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion (see WP:NOTPROMO), including attempts to manipulate search results by creating articles. Bakazaka (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is considered to be self promotion, then why do other podcasts and tv shows that deal with similar subject matter have an article on Wikipedia? The ESPN show Skipp and Shannon Undisputed for instance has its own Wikipedia article that appears on google search results. I don’t consider it to be self promotion, and I don’t consider my article to be self promotion in the same way. Fglavan —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Fglavan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    • Please sign your talk page posts with 4 tildes, like this ~~~~ . No-one said "self promotion". We said that the article is promotional, meaning that it seems to serve no purpose but to promote the subject of the article, which is the podcast. Your comments suggest that you may be involved with the podcast If this is the case please confirm this, and read WP:COI. Meters (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m a listener of the podcastFglavan —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a free advertising forum.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as shameless self-promotion in an attempt to manipulate search engines. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is purely promotional. There isn't any real secondary coverage of the podcast.GPL93 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNGMgbo120 (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and article is entirely promotional in nature. Adamtt9 (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worst failure of WP:GNG i've seen. No notability, the article is bare and lacks references, and from the looks of it, it also violates WP:NOTPROMO. To the bin with this article. James-the-Charizard (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Charizard. Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratoire d'ingénierie des systèmes de Versailles[edit]

Laboratoire d'ingénierie des systèmes de Versailles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP HighKing++ 13:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears that the subject mother institution has been audited by the state's Comité national d'évaluation des établissements publics à caractère scientifique, culturel et professionnel (here). -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I submit my !vote further below. -The Gnome (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction : It seems I fell for the old "false link" trick in the Languages bar. An editor linked the contested article to the French-language article for the Université de Versailles-Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, which is notable and already has its own article in this Wikipedia. Which is why I found & posted up those links; they are about the university. This AfD, however, is about merely a laboratory run by the university, a lab that possesses no notability at all on its own. (There isn't an article about the lab in the French-language Wikipedia.) My suggestion therefore for the actual contested article is a Strong Delete. -The Gnome (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Dratify. Page requires more into to look encyclopedicMgbo120 (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_January_15&oldid=1142614176"