Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 January	26 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisann Brennan[edit]

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

Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. Anything of note can be merged into the article on Steve Jobs. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as there are enough sources to establish WP:GNG. I also want to point out that WP:INVALIDBIO is inherently sexist (which does not mean it is never applicable, but is going to be prone to systemic bias). See this literature [1][2][3] Same point re: Laurene Powell Jobs and Lisa Brennan-Jobs, which I'm surprised you haven't also nom'd under the same guideline. --Theredproject (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, she's related to Steve Jobs, but she has been continuously covered in media mentions and books for many years. She's also portrayed in a couple of movies. Strong sources like this fortune.com article leave no doubt as to her general notability. (As a painter however, she has no notablity.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Theredproject pretty much summarizes my response.-Classicfilms (talk) 02:12, 27 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Catherine's Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) Program[edit]

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

Brochure article. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent sources and don't see the point of redirecting since it is an unlikely search term. b uidhe 03:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV. Excelse (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Should be merged into St. Catherine University, not enough to have a standalone article plus it is a program at the university so no point having it's own page. PlotHelpful (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a pretty clear consensus against deletion. Further discussion of a possible merge can proceed on the article talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing education unit[edit]

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

Personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Seems to be a common enough academic measure online, though I could be persuaded by people actually in the field of education.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging this article with the article on Continuing education as the subject is important, but makes no real sense on its own, separate from its context. Merging would improve the Continuing education article and bring context to this article, rather than deleting it.Prolumbo (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and selective merge with article Continuing Education - the article has had a tag saying it may include original research since April 2014, but there may be enough in the article for it be merged with the article on Continuing Education. Vorbee (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing any personal content here and so the nomination seems to be an erroneous vague wave. See here for some coverage of the concept. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any sources.Rathfelder (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestion that this is notable enough to merit an article of its own. No meaningful references.Rathfelder (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was said of this in the nomination so this is moving the goalposts. Was step D of WP:BEFORE carried out? "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability." Please don't introduce new issues if the groundwork has not been done. Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a couple of references to the article. A lot of search results show educational facilities defining what a continuing education unit is, giving out detailed information on it. So references were very easy to find. If it can't be expanded farther and the main article isn't too crowded, it can be merged over to Continuing education. Dream Focus 14:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep I am engaged in major work to improve the article on 'Continuing education' and improve this article om 'Continuing education unit' as it is within my field. I tend to work locally and upload proofed substantial edits and there is still quite a bit of work to do. I personally think this article has merit as a section of the Continuing education article, less so as an article in its own right, because the former would need to include a substantial section on the latter to be complete. However, perhaps deletion could be postponed for a month or so until my proposed edits and rewrite can be reviewed.Prolumbo (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much better as part of the Continuing education article.Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky[edit]

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

The subject of the article has no valid claims to notability. He has not been elected to any local, state, or national post. Fails NPOL. The article is somewhat promotional. The person has some coverage for a few controversial comments and his relation to his father but not enough to meet notability guidelines. While his father is notable, he is not. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. It should also be noted that the IP address that authored the article has focused almost exclusively on this page and pages related to the subject. best, GPL93 (talk) 2158, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Keep. The article is about a sociologist, historian and a politician. His aristocratic lineage and genealogy are well documented and it is among the oldest, historic and finest of his nation. His major academic publications as a renowned academic historian and sociologist was cited. The proposed deletion is vindictive and reflects the attitude of supporters of the repressive regime in Dhaka who won an election by rigging. All sources were cited. The article should be kept and not deleted. Also, notability is subjective --there could be a wikipedia page on Al Capone on the notability of organized crime, as well as a page on Mother Teresa and everyone in between. Notability of the public figure being disputed stems from his academic work, aristocratic family background in Bangladesh and anti-dynastic politics. Most wikipedia editors from Bangladesh come from humble social background and could refer this page for deletion out of jealousy or on the basis of political alliance to the repressive political regime in Bangladesh. For that reason those editors have imposed their personal subjective value judgment on notability and should refrain from doing so for maintaining the objectivity of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk)

Maybe this should be kept, but after seeing you argue on the basis of personal attacks rather than the availability of sources I'm very reluctant to do the work of looking for sources that might substantiate notability. It's a sure sign that someone is here to push a point of view rather than create a neutral encyclopedia article when that editor makes unfounded accusations that others are pushing a point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The same person who nominated the page for deletion Vinegarymass911 have now nominated the pictures on that page for deletion. He seems to be having an agenda. Please see the talk page of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC) voted twice. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different users, two different users.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC) (This comment was removed by the IP user, do not remove or alter the comments of other users, thank you).Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL for his political activities or WP:AUTHOR for his writing, but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu — for either of those things, the notability test is not just that the subject exists, but requires that he has enough reliable source coverage about him and his work to clear GNG. But that's not what the sources here are showing: this is referenced almost entirely to sources that aren't support for notability, such as Blogspot blogs and other user-generated wikis and primary sources and very short news blurbs that aren't substantive enough to constitute a GNG pass all by themselves. This is not enough sourcing to get a person over the bar. And when a brand new user with no prior edit history jumps straight to "the nominator has a political agenda" as their rationale for opposing a deletion discussion, without presenting any credible evidence of the nominator's agenda at all, it's very nearly always a sign that the accuser has a political agenda to misuse Wikipedia as a promotional venue for the article subject (and thus probably has a direct conflict of interest.) Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a Major local political figure in anti-dynastic politics in Bangladesh who have received significant press coverage as per WP:NPOL The proponents of deletion are pushing an agenda and this is clear from another deletion request to delete the pictures associated with this page. Having received few support for deletion of the page, they have moved on to request deletion of the photos associated with the page. The book titled The Compromised Republic: An Inquiry Into the Development Of Underdevelopment. Oriental Publishers, India. 2003. (subscription required). written by this person is on display at the Library of Congress as evident from google search, satisfying WP:AUTHOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC) voted twice. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't vote more than once.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not a voting booth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.164.242 (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, but Wikipedia:DISCUSSAFD says "do not repeat a bolded recommendation". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Vinegarymass911 and Phil Bridger are correct that while you're allowed to comment as many times as you like in a deletion discussion, you're not allowed to "vote" more than once: you may not preface any of your followup comments with a bolded restatement of the "keep" you've already given, but must format them strictly as comments rather than new "votes".
Secondly, AUTHOR is not passed just by showing a card catalogue that technically verifies the holding of his book in an archive or library — it is passed by showing reliable source coverage about his book, such as critical reviews or analysis in newspapers or magazines or academic literary or political science journals.
Thirdly, if he's received significant press coverage, the article isn't showing that — the only press coverage it's showing at all is a couple of short blurbs, neither substantive enough in content nor voluminous enough in number to get him over GNG at all.
Fourthly, nominating the article's photos for deletion is not proof that anybody has a political agenda — photos on Wikipedia still have to comply with all of our rules, including WP:COPYRIGHT, and you have no inalienable right to upload any photo here that is not correctly compliant with our rules for photos. And at any rate, two of the three photos are of buildings, while the third is just people eating at a banquet — there is literally nothing about any of the photos which suggests any reason why deletion discussions would be politically motivated at all.
Speaking as a site administrator, let me be very clear: if I see you make one more accusation that anybody in this discussion is acting in bad faith, you're going to find yourself on the business end of a temporary edit block for being uncivil and disruptive — and this is your only warning, you're not getting a second one. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We are asked to believe that this person is notable because his "aristocratic lineage and genealogy are well documented and it is among the oldest, historic and finest of his nation" and simultaneously that he is a figure in "anti-dynastic politics". The contradiction there is blatantly obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aristocratic lineage and genealogy are inherited while anti-dynastic political activism is ideological. Inheritance of aristocratic notability is received and not earned while notability for anti-dynastic political activism is earned through hard, painful and often difficult political work. In case of this individual that also included long jail sentences and lawsuits for standing up against dynastic politics in Bangladesh. Coming back to inherited aristocratic notability, in the world of the "Self-made-man" who has shed his past to forge a future with his own merit and hard work, inherited notability of aristocracy is not only unacceptable but also illegitimate. Therefore giving credit in Wikipedia for inherited aristocratic notability in Bangladesh is contestable and debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.226 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of aristocratic notability, one should read WP:NOTINHERITED. Coming from an aristocratic background or a prestigious family does not guarantee notability. Secondly, the coverage regarding the subject is not sustained or particularly significant. In regards to the subject being notable as an academic and author, he clearly doesn't pass the standards of WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR. I'd also encourage 103.116.167.226 to disclose any possible WP:COI as this point, it would appear highly likely that the article fits the profile of an WP:AUTOBIO and his defense of the article appears to be highly personal. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Found nothing notable in Bengali also. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

writing in Bengali is not a prerequisite for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.226 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to try to twist anything anyone says. আফতাবুজ্জামান has simply mentioned searching in Bengali as well as English in order to help you keep this article by finding sources, but found nothing. Bengali is the most likely language in which sources might exist, followed by English, so it's a good idea for those who are capable of doing so (as I am not) to search in both languages. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note I have requested that both 103.116.167.226 and 103.116.164.242 disclose any potential WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member of his campaign staff for the Mayor of Dhaka in 2007/2009/2012 and for the Mayor of Dhaka North in 2015/2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.167.226 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for disclosing that. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 29 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) 20:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RadASM[edit]

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

Only reference is primary. Clean-up templates from 2010 haven't been addressed. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Dgpop (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. Only ref is to a computer science department how-to manual. A search turned up incidental mentions, but no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was previously deleted at afd in 2007. Dialectric (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing has changed in regards to notability since the first AfD. SL93 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guideline. No reliable coverage on software. PlotHelpful (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mermerler Otomotiv[edit]

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

Non-notable Chery distributor for Turkey fails WP:CORP. Even in the Turkish press the coverage seems quite rutinary and the company doesn't seem to be relevant even in its country. The only sources in the article at present are primary ones: a Chery website and the company's own website. Urbanoc (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don’t see any sources indicating that this firm is notable. It’s just long-established, as far as I can see. Mccapra (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a car distributor. The article's claims are not back by references and the 3rd paragraph about post-sale support is more appropriate to a company brochure than here, even if WP:RS were available. Searches are not finding better than routine coverage, insufficient for WP:NCORP notability. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP guidelines. Just passing mentions from search results. PlotHelpful (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Bryant (cricketer)[edit]

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. None of the matches he played in were first-class, despite the claims of the article, so he fails the technical aspects of NCRIC and ATHLETE. The only information we appear to have on Bryant is taken from scorecards of matches he played in - CricketArchive has only a year and place of death beyond the two matches it places him in. The both year and place appear to be speculative at best and we simply lack any other biographical information from suitable sources, so there's no way we'll ever be able to create a biography which meets WP:GNG. Contested PROD with no reason given. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same essential issue - nothing other than scorecard information is being used with no hope of being able to build a biography. Is the brother of John Bryant:

Comment I note that, notwithstanding the nomination statement, WP:NCRIC does not mention "first class" at all, merely the highest international or domestic level. If Ashley-Cooper has described the level that the Bryants were playing at as "top-class matches", that aligns with our requirements. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SN 54129. If you follow the link from NCRIC to WP:CRIN, it explains in more details what "top-class matches" are, including info on first-class cricket. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Lugnuts, it says almost precisely the same thing in almost precisely the same language:

WP:NCRIC: Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level

WP:CRIN: has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level.

Thanks, ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are issues with the technical way in which NCRIC is written - which I'm happy to elaborate on at any point. In almost every case it is interpreted at AfD to mean "first-class, list A or official T20". There are different opinions about what is regarded as top-class amongst people who have written about early cricket - and one author's opinion is not necessarily shared by others. Notwithstanding that, if there was sufficient biographical information to suggest that the article met the GNG I wouldn't have nominated it - for example, William Bedle or Thomas Waymark I would suggest are about at GNG standards. I don't believe that we will ever have enough to get either Bryant to that sort of level - we are almost totally reliant on information synthesised from scorecards for the content of the articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we just scrap the ludicrously over broad cricket notability guidelines and require indepth coverage in multiple indepdent 3rd partysecondary sources to actually be found, and totally delete the hundreds of Cricket articles sourced only to stattistical tables.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But this one isn't sourced only to statistical tables. Johnlp (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He played cricket in some matches on some dates is pretty much what the article says. Fails WP:CRIN, and on GNG, there's nothing really to go on to make an article out of. StickyWicket (talk) 17:15, 25 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) 20:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos Domingo[edit]

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

The only references I can find to the subject are self-promotional primary-sourced or low-grade websites. Don't think he passes WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable YouTube celebrity. Rzvas (talk) 10:39, 30 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) 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wallet[edit]

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

The topic fails WP:GNG. The few references used are mere press releases. Moreover, there are regular WP:COI cases recorded. Mendypendy (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A look at first and 2nd previous deletions reveals that the page already qualifies for Speedy delete WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). It was deleted and then recreated again and updated severally by editors with Wp:COI cases.Mendypendy (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still remains a COI mess, and the paid editing has made it worse. It continues to read as an ADVERT, and I felt the 2015 keep decision was ill-made based on a short period of trying to keep the COI under control that seemed to evaporate the moment the keep was sealed on nom #3. It hasn't established new notability since then outside of things like their CEO donations that are of no interest to this article. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I couldn't find any convincing features of the topic in the references used. COI issue is also worrisome. Germcrow (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:CORP. No valid sources on ground. Laosilika (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Cwmhiraeth who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional. scope_creep^Talk 16:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not because I apparently accepted it at AfC in 2014, but more because of the good references discussed in depth at the third AfD, where the result was "keep". I do not find the present version of the article promotional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most if not all the references i gathered from GNEWS were PR pieces. Nothing from any secondary source. PlotHelpful (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Urian Brereton[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, and may not even be RS'd. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Based on a preliminary search, I'd probably agree he doesn't seem particularly notable, but the page was only created 8 minutes before you nominated it. The person might have sources that aren't online. Should it be moved to user space or something like that? ManicSpider (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and found nothing,. moreover they have been working on this since at least 31 January 2017 (see their talk page). I think a year is long enough to find sources. indeed it had been CSD'd only yesterday.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found some sources, and added some facts about him to the article based on these.--Pontificalibus 13:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odd how it took this AFD to get this started. Not sure oif these are quite enough, but they maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think any member of the privy chamber under Henry VIII would be notable, and there are enough sources to write an article here.--Pontificalibus 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We; I know thesources for this period if nothing else. Lets' have a look.
Cheshire Parish Register Database is of course a primary source. Prathergenealogy.com is a private website with no editiorial overview. Findagrave I believe to be a no-no. There's nothing wrong with the Victorian antiquariana, but, frankly, you could mine it a lot further. And the same, writ large, goes for Thornton, the best source you've got, and yet hardly touched. At the moment, you've got the passing mentions (inherited this, was appointed that, etc.—everything exected of the 16th-century gentry), but not the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG.
Incidentally, the Queen naming her lap dog after you is probably the greatest claim of significance going! All the best, ——SerialNumber54129 15:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man had several county-wide roles, as mentioned in the current article, there's more detail about him in the book Cheshire and the Tudor State 1480-1560 which Pontificalibus added, not to mention that he was knighted for valour - he is definitely notable, and there is significant coverage of him. I don't think it's odd at all that other editors didn't work on an article that only existed in mainspace for 13 minutes before being nominated for deletion, and I do wonder how thorough WP:BEFORE was. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To me, he is clearly encyclopedic. Also, other members of the privy chamber with him who have pages are John Carey (courtier), Anthony Denny, and Walter Walsh (courtier).[4] Walsh in particular could use some attention. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Courtiers are notable. Knights are notable. Should be moved to Urian Brereton though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 30 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) 20:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Light-speed silicon chip[edit]

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

The article appears to consist largely of original research and improper synthesis, if it isn't a hoax. The description of the IBM IC superficially follows that of the cited Popular Science article. However, the claim that the IBM IC is called the "light-speed silicon chip", and the claim that it will result in an EFLOPS-scale supercomputer by 2018, are invented. The following "How it works" section implies that it's elaborating on the IBM IC, but it's actually about something else. The cited Phys.org article doesn't support any of the claims made in that section, and is unrelated to that section's content.

Light-speed silicon chip had been merged into Optical interconnect. As a result of a recent discussion at Talk:Optical interconnect#This article's topic and mergers, the consensus was to restore Optical interconnect to a revision dated before light-speed silicon chip was merged into it. There isn't any content from Light-speed silicon chip to merge anywhere, and its technobabble title makes it an inappropriate redirect. 99Electrons (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete technobabble about vaporware from 10 years ago. This is also a duplicate topic of Photonic chip which has the same problems. More recent sources suggest that it's now quantum photonic computing (press release), which I believe to be more bullshitware. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks unlikely and also appears to be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. ^{[Username Needed]} 16:12, 25 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) 20:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porthemmet Beach hoax[edit]

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

"News of the weird" type story that got coverage for a few days; no enduring notability or significance. Article was created by blocked sock of hoax originator. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this meaningless promotional mess. --Lockley (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received both significant and sustained coverage that meets the requirements. It might be a 'slow news week' puff piece, but that doesn't change the fact that people were still writing articles solely about it over a year later - and as recently as last year it received its own section in a local article^[5] -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was mistakenly posted for the January 2 period. I have relisted it to ensure it is not lost.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no enduring notability. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 28 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. Randykitty (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Waddell[edit]

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Here is a basic Google Search yielding little if anything beyond employer bios. Cubbie15fan (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just quickly looking, there appears to be some RS coverage here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just went ahead and added a couple of them to the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that part of the problem here is that the article as it currently stands is mis-titled; Mike Waddell (athletic director) would be the correct name, per WP:COMMONNAME. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per edits by Ejgreen77.--UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources are currently routine business hiring announcements. Fails WP:GNG and is a glorified resume. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Between what's already been added to the article and what's available here, I think there's enough available to meet WP:GNG. The article is badly in need of a thorough rewrite, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even a search with Mike Waddell instead of Michael P. Waddell only appears to return results of routine hiring announcements. Are you able to share some specific sources that pass both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT? As we know, Wiki isn't a place for someone's resume and thats what this is. Cubbie15fan (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the sources listed by Bagumba further down in this discussion. Obviously, the article is in need of a thorough overhaul (some of which has already started since this discussion began), but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue (i.e. Deletion is not cleanup). Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m going with delete because when you take out the vain attempt to deceive readers and make this article appear meatier than it really is by copying the infobox into the lede, all that’s really here is a regional source. Subject has not in any way passed the general notability threshold at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Other than the source issues, it doesn't follow the wiki conventions. The creator should draft it first. ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. One of those cases where you need to search with keywords from his former positions, as his name is semi-generic and they usually refer to him as "Mike" and not current article title with "Michael". Significant coverages not already in the article includes pieces from The State-Register Journal, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner and Florida Daily.—Bagumba (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 25 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) 21:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instana[edit]

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

A WP:SPA article on a company/product. Previously rejected twice at AfC but then recreated in mainspace without addressing the issues identified by The Drover's Wife and K.e.coffman in their AfC reviews. Inclusion in a Gartner field review does not carry inherent notability and nor do fundraising announcements. Since the upload to mainspace, Instana has been mentioned briefly in a "Top Nine Vendor Highlights From KubeCon" item but neither that nor anything else found in searches indicates that notability has been achieved, whether under WP:NCORP if considered as a company or under WP:GNG for its product. AllyD (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. This didn't pass AfC for a reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The SD Times and Techcrunch articles appear to just get it over the line for WP:GNG. There's also an article in Handelsblatt, which is most definitely an RS, albeit German-language. I've got to be honest and say that this kind of AFD raises doubts about the draft process in my mind, since I often see articles nominated for AFD where AFC was skipped where the nomination amounts to "The article creator didn't do what I told them to do, now please delete this for me". It makes me think the process is not being treated as a collaborative one, but instead as a teacher/student one. However, I've never put an article through the draft process so maybe I'm just seeing one side of it. FOARP (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Handelsblatt source is solid, although the TechCrunch and SD Times coverage are a bit more borderline for WP:ORGCRITE. Still, the laudatory tone of the SD Times piece, plus the other borderline coverage, leads me to think that more coverage exists such that this meets WP:GNG (i.e. WP:NPOSSIBLE). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: one sources is not enough to meet WP:NCORP. TechCruch & SD Times are too indiscriminate to meet WP:ORGIND. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also a bunch of other coverage in German media. Do WP:BEFORE people. 1 2 3 FOARP (talk) 16:59, 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 01:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I appreciate that, despite attempts to codify WP:NCORP standards, judgment still needs to be made of identified sources. I have looked further at those proposed, to evaluate whether I stand by my original nomination. The SD Times text is copied from company PR. The Techcrunch item is a light paraphrase of this PR with the same funding partner quotation. The Wirtschafts Woche item is the same PR funding announcement. The Solinger Tageblatt item appears to be similar, although it is paywalled local coverage. For me, these have to be set aside as falling under the "routine coverage … of a capital transaction" part of our criteria. However, there are the more substantial Gründerszene/Welt and Handelsblatt items. Gründerszene followed their coverage of the same funding announcement with their more detailed article/interview shortly afterwards. Both this and the earlier Handelsblatt article provide more detail but, for me, they remain propositional descriptions about where a start-up company sees its potential market position rather than critical evaluation, and insufficient to demonstrate that the firm has yet achieved lasting encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AInstana&type=revision&diff=868765294&oldid=868710462 Agathoclea (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the analysis of AllyD, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even covered at Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbloomberg/2018/12/15/top-nine-vendor-highlights-from-kubecon/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B88C:457E:E468:B580:34F0:F1A0 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tons of news coverage: https://www.google.com/search?q=instana&hl=en&tbm=nws — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:B88C:457E:E468:B580:34F0:F1A0 (talk) 17:49, 31 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 Viasat Film. To quote User:BabbaQ, Articles need sources. Yes they do. And these don't have them, as User:Ad Orientem points out. No sources, no WP:V, no article. There's not strictly a consensus to redirect, but it seems like a reasonable thing to do, per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viasat Film Action[edit]

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

Not notable on its own; article too short Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

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

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

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

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

Keep - These are actual channels. Articles need sources though. And article size really does not matter in terms of deletion or keep. But more input neededBabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only reason this is a one-sentence article is because we've put all the relevant information in the infobox. Take the infobox into account and it actually provides a decent bit of information. /Julle (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Too short" should result in an effort to expand, not delete. Given the multinational nature of the channel it certainly seems notable. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Yes they exist, but existence doesn't mean notability. Sjö (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC) I have no objection to redirecting per Mrschimpf.Sjö (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the article is too short, but should not be deleted. Passes WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This assertion has no sources. Please explain with examples how these articles meet WP:GNG. I can find program listings and non-independent sources but those don't add to WP:GNG.Sjö (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viasat Film, along with Viasat Film Comedy, Viasat Film Family, Viasat Film Hits and Viasat Film Premiere This is per past consensus of multiplex premium film channels like HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Starz and Sky Cinema, where usually the additional channels those services have can't stand out on their own (and going by cable's future, will likely make way for just a couple channels thanks to VOD); these channels all have genres they usually doesn't drift from, and we can't really expand it beyond what we have now, along with the latter two, which describe 'proven film hits' and 'air only newer films'. No merge because there's just too little there, but all four should definitely be retained as plausible redirects. Nate • (chatter) 23:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "no merge because there's just too little there", have you taken the infobox into account? I'd argue it contains useful information. /Julle (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did; it contains cable positions easily merged into Viasat Film, but outside of that, the information is mainly duplicative since it's a suite of channels which all share the same history, outside of individual names. Nate • (chatter) 06:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some misunderstanding here. Article notability or use are not based on size. Every single of these articles should and can be expanded with individual information. All are clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already described above, these are all multiplex channels. They usually carry a certain genre of film and nothing more than that, and can be described easily in a paragraph in Viasat Film, as we have done for the other premium multiplexes we list here. Nate • (chatter) 08:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Articles are entirely unsourced and fail WP:V which is policy and non-negotiable. None of these can be kept without any sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:32, 25 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 Alex Salmond. There is a general consensus against keeping this page with the view being that it is TOOSOON. However, it does seem at least possible that at some point this content fork may merit a stand alone article. Additionally the title is a plausible search term. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HM Advocate v Salmond[edit]

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

As per talk page discussion, no reason for a separate article to Alex Salmond and nothing to merge as content is already there. RhinosF1 (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good reason to have standalone article duplicating two sentences of content already merged to Alex Salmond, exactly where readers of the encyclopedia will actually look for it. An article title starting with "HM Advocate" is an unlikely search term for this event, so a redirect does not make sense. That leaves delete. Bakazaka (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same as TP consensus here that I closed. RhinosF1 (talk) 07:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON and having a specific page on this may invite BLP issues. b uidhe 07:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Salmond' WP:TOOSOON and a duplicate of existing content. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are probably going to have to create this sooner or later, so we may as well do so now. PatGallacher (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In its current state though it is a duplicate of a section in the Alex Salmond article. Should it not be deleted until if/when the section gets too big. There was no consensus to split the articles. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: User:PatGallacher is the pages original creator. RhinosF1 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per others above. At some point, a separate page may well make sense. That time is probably months away, at best. I don't think it helps any having a stub until then. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that it is appropriate based on how the issue is going. Since it will become more controversial as it progresses, I think a new article should host it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edo6209 (talk • contribs)

But under sub judice laws, there isn't going to be any reporting on this for ages until a trial starts, surely. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bondegezou's comments if/when the section becomes too long then a decision should be made to split the articles back, I would also support a requirement of a Full discussion to decide in future if the article should be re-WP:SPLIT RhinosF1 (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the Keep-side on this. This article should stay. This is clearly needed already.BabbaQ (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ: Can you explain how you came to this conclusion? RhinosF1 (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is duplicated on the main article. RhinosF1 (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a matter of pragmatism and because, technically, this case does not exist. We all agree this article will be born, assuming the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service decide to prosecute, but it's hard to see how it can have much useful encyclopedic content at the moment, and not until at least the preliminary hearing if not the trial (should they take place). So in the mean time it's just going to be a magnet for trolls and suck up editor energy, not to mention its potential as a platform for illegal activity. Can't see how it's worth all that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I can definitely see the "too soon" rationale, but this is a fairly high profile case against a fairly high profile individual. It will almost certainly become notable if it's not already. NickCT (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately at the moment, it looks to duplicate existing content and probably has a bad title. Wouldn't a split once it becomes notable for the full scandal be better. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON I also agree with the comments of Deacon of Pndapetzim. --Enos733 (talk) 00:58, 29 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunanda Wong[edit]

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

Zero hits at Google News. Fails WP:GNG. Looks like yet another attempt to promote a nobody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete it? User:Lucifero4

@Lucifero4: Because as I clearly indicated in my nomination, the article fails our general notability guideline, which you should be aware of if you edit at Wikipedia and create articles at Wikipedia. You've created 125 articles and have no awareness of a basic community requirement for when an article should be created? Is this a joke? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have indicated that argument meets also other criteria.User:Lucifero4

@Lucifero4: You haven't indicated anything or made any argument. You !voted and asked a question. If your "keep" !vote is meaningful to you, you will support it with guidelines or policy-based reasons, like I and the others have done, otherwise the person closing the discussion will disregard it. Also, if you choose to participate in discussions, please type four tildes after your name like ~~~~. This will properly append your signature and a timestamp to your posts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot seeing how they meet notability. They've won a game show and hosted a couple of other small shows. Sources aren't there - an interview (doesn't help notability), a passing mention (doesn't help notability), article about winning the show (helps, but also supports a redirect to the show) and another article with a passing mention. Ravensfire (talk) 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Draft:Sunanda Wong was declined at AFC on 18 November 2018 and had not been improved since then so I was surprised to see it moved to article space. This might possibly have been because I had nominated Sunanda Wong for deletion after Bhanwar singh vaish created it as a copy and past move of the draft, making several errors in the process. I agree that the subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG so I see no reason for the article to be kept, even as a draft. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. WP:TOOSOON. Qualitist (talk) 19:25, 26 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. I don't normally close discussions as a delete on the basis of a single supporting !vote w/o at least one relist. However, in this case it is clear that the OP has done their due diligence and the editor who removed the Prod notice has chosen not to make an argument for keeping the page. That's enough for me. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Fulbrook[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Original PROD reason was: I'm not finding much indication of notability. There's this brief piece in an industry magazine about him being headhunted to a new firm. This near-identical piece leads me to think it was based on a press release. Other than that, there's some name-drops and book credits, but nothing substantively about him as a person.

Decline reason from DGG's edit summary was: prob. notable. First check for sources; then, only if not found, nominate for deletion at AfD--or draftify.

The decline completely ignores the fact that my PROD nomination made clear that I did check for sources - and failed to find any substantial and independent ones. There's no reason to draftify this decade-old article; if there's been no evidence of notability within the last ten years, another six months isn't likely to help.

Side note: I see the industry awards, but unless they are themselves "well-known and significant" (per WP:ANYBIO), or someone wrote substantially about the subject receiving one, they aren't indicators of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You are correct, there is not much out there beyond book credits ("Designed by John Fulbrook III") and industry biographies. I did not even see an interview. The awards might give some notability, but I doubt it given the way the design industry awards are so integrated with business interests.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I decline any prod where I think a community discussion is reasonably likely to find sources--that's about 1 a day, on the average, in additionto those I decline for other reasons. About half get deleted, half kept. Probably=probably, not that I necessarily support keeping.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Which is fine, but I do find it a little irritating to see an edit summary that tells me to look for sources when my nomination specifically states I did look and failed to find any. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 29 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 2018 Idaho elections. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Collum[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject is a candidate for office who did not win. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as lacking in depth coverage outside of the campaign. There are some sources, but no WP:LASTING impact. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a prime example what’s wrong with Wikipedia. Too much agenda here. Until she actually wins an office, not as a running mate, being a “female politician” is not notability. Many female politicians ran, won, and lost in 2018, not all of them were notable enough for articles for now. Trillfendi (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A possible redirect target for a losing candidate for Idaho's Lieutenant Governor in 2018 is 2018 Idaho elections. --Enos733 (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Idaho elections. Failed political candidate, doesn't pass WP:NPOL. No coverage of note that I can see prior to the election. Icewhiz (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2018 Idaho elections, doesn't pass WP:NPOL. GPL93 (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win — and the fact that the race happened to be between two women, thus ensuring that the office would be held by a woman for the first time regardless of which woman actually won it in the end, is not in and of itself a thing that makes the losing candidate special. But there's no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons present here at all, nor evidence of enough media coverage to make her candidacy more special than most other non-winning candidates' candidacies either. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name to 2018 Idaho elections, otherwise not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to 2018 Idaho elections, How many times do we have to say this? WP:NPOL requires actually winning an election. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinkstep[edit]

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

Article contributed by a probable undisclosed COI editor has only two references, one of which is to the company's website. A BEFORE fails to find SIGCOV in RS. Chetsford (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quite a few mentions in Google Books, some reasonably substantial (e.g. [6]). Worth noting that the company was known as PE International prior to March 2015, and also worth noting that searches for 'PE International' will find a lot of results about an (unrelated) airport. --Michig (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Brief mentions, routine coverage, mentions of their surveys, and press releases is all I could locate. I did see the book references as well but they are not in-depth enough to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 26 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Chambers (English cricketer)[edit]

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. None of the matches he played in were first-class, despite the claims of the article, so he fails the technical aspects of NCRIC and ATHLETE. Beyond that we have a name and suggestion from one source that he may have been related to someone else and then information taken from scorecards and a match report, none of which mentions Chambers in any detail at all. This is really not sufficient to build a biography so fails GNG. Contested PROD with no reason given. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 25 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Reed[edit]

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

Startup disruptor company and probably a borderline case in terms of meeting the WP:ORG requirement of multiple significant, reliable and independent coverage. There is a NYT article from its founding, a WSJ article as a disruptor and a Forbes article. I have a feeling that it is going to get to AfD anyway, so might as well test now and get a ruling. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this is on the border, after carefully thinking about it, I am of the opinion that current coverage,including that of NYT and Forbes (an actual Forbes writer not a contributor) constitutes the sort of coverage that satisfies the standard present in NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep Plenty of reliable sources there. Trillfendi (talk) 03:10, 25 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 merge to Brand relationship#Brand intimacy. A number of the editors participating in the AfD discussion have expressed concern about unsourced and /or promotional content. Care should be taken by those undertaking the merge to only keep material that is verifiable and NPOV. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brand intimacy[edit]

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

This article, from its first incarnation through the three edits made in the last hour by Georgefowlerbrady, has been engineered to be an advertisement for a model by a marketing agency, MBLM (which uses the tagline "The Brand Intimacy Agency"), and its representative, Mario Natarelli. Nearly all the sources and external links lead to them: the whole article is WP:LINKSPAM and WP:REFSPAM. To the extent there is an objective concept one might call "brand intimacy" underneath all of this, I don't see a good way to weed it out from all the WP:UNDUE weight on this one company's pitch, and I tried to neutralize it at least a bit but to no avail as other editors, seemingly intent on making the article serve as a come-on for that company, keep building the article into a white paper for the company, so I'm suggesting WP:TNT. The only reason I'm not just throwing G11 speedy deletion at it is that it's been through several rounds of edits and it manages to avoid advertising MBLM and Natarelli directly, even though that's the clear effect. Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into brand_relationship#Brand_intimacy which is the same topic. There's a lot of this stuff about including brand love, brand loyalty, brand awareness, &c. There's a fair amount of variation in the terminology, depending on the authors, and others have defined band intimacy differently to mean detailed knowledge, rather than the type of emotion, When a customer has extremely detailed knowledge of, and a close association with, a brand it's called brand intimacy. So, I reckon it's best to push this marketing stuff together to help establish a consensus about the terminology. Andrew D. (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to brand_relationship#Brand_intimacy per commenter above. I also think we need to delete all REFSPAM here regardless. Skirts89 (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as baldly promotional marketing dreck. --Lockley (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discard all unsourced and blatantly WP:OR text and Merge what can be rescued into the section of the article about brand relationships. -The Gnome (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this college power point presentation. No need to merge it. Trillfendi (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to brand_relationship#Brand_intimacy, as the quality of material is not high enough to be worth merging. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 09:14, 25 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Craig (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. Clearly non notable minor league player. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NHOCKEY. Quis separabit? 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He narrowly misses NHOCKEY, but he seems to have gotten some coverage. Although his career ended more than 40 years ago, I was able to quickly find a couple of substantial articles about him: here and here. Given the length of time since he last played and the fact that these were easy to find, I have to believe there is more coverage that is less easy to find, but even this marginally meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rlendog: That's really stretching it. "Marginally"? Why do we have to clutter up Wikipedia with non-notables, encouraging further such article creations? Quis separabit? 21:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, even curent minor leaguers who fail NHOCKEY also don't have multiple articles substantially about them. In this case we have a subject whose career ended 40 years ago, so most of his potential coverage won't be readily accessible. But in this case there are 2 articles that I was able to find - which is significant coverage in multiple (at the lowest level of "multiple") reliable sources. Normally, for a current minor leaguer I would want something more than this, but I'll settle for marginally meeting GNG for someone before the internet age. I am not sure how this article is "cluttering up" Wikipedia. Anyone who is not interested in him can easily avoid the article. Rlendog (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and some local typical sports reporting from his minor league career isn't enough to meet the GNG or every minor leaguer would be notable.Sandals1 (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players. All his notability would come from hockey so this is reason to delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2019

NHOCKEY is irrelevant for a subject that passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NHOCKEY....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NHOCKEY is irrelevant for a subject that passes GNG. Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 28 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plain folks[edit]

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

Lying dormant since 2007, this term - while ostensibly portraying a real phenomenon used in politics which I won't deny - only has one source and is worded like a sturdy coined phrase instead of a spurious neologism. If this "fallacy" has a name, it woukd have many and "Plain folks" isn't it. Anyway, it has one source and seems to fail WP:GNG right now. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I’m gonna say keep only because there are in fact reliable sources on this common phenomenon such as New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, and TIME (as recently as 2016). Article can be expanded and done correctly.Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If such sources exist, provide link(s) here or add them directly to the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was too lazy to do so initially but here are examples: New York Times, CBS, TIME, for a about most of the decade, specifically in the 2012 election, Obama has been known to do it but I don’t think it was necessarily a plain folks technique in my opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come off it, those are all just passing mentions of the phrase, or asserting that a certain person has that attribute. None of them pass muster as in-depth discussion of the concept as required by GNG. SpinningSpark 22:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to commoner, which is a larger article about the concept meant by this title. The stuff about politicians posing as common folk is covered elsewhere under more accurate titles such as demagogue#Folksy_posturing. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Trillfendi (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Nice topic for Logic. Good for wiki philosophers. But the topic needs to be developed the more.Mgbo120 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Propaganda_techniques#Common man (anchor needed), which links commoner in the header. It's rather duplicative of that section, and the fallacy is covered at Argument from authority#Appeal to non-authorities. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eline Powell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. There are three possibly-useful references beyond a bunch of interviews, other non-independent sources and passing mentions, HLN, Deadline and Hollywood Reporter. Deadline doesn't say much and not what it's cited for, and Hollywood Reporter uses a single sentence to pan Powell's performance in what appears to have been her most notable role. HLN is "local woman has big success"-style human-interest reporting. That's not enough. I started removing unreliably-sourced content and found that I could just go on removing. Having had roles is not enough; reliable third-party sources must actually discuss the actor for us to be able to write a meaningful article. Huon (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plays the main role on US-TV-series Siren (TV series). Being the main actress of a TV series that meanwhile spans two seasons, makes you noticeable.--Robberey1705 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you can find some reliable sources that actually discuss her in some detail, beyond telling us that her parents live in Flanders and she likes to visit them. Huon (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles with more in-depth coverage linked from her articles in nl-wiki and fr-wiki. But even without GNG, her lead role in Siren added to named roles in GoT, Quartet, etc. surely add up to NACTOR, IMO. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles"? I don't see those; there's one French piece which lists the famous actors she played next to, but other than that? Notability is not inherited. Huon (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many people on this website think just having your name in parentheses next to a role is notability as an actor (it’s not). Without independent reliable sources, it makes no sense. One of the source here is Instagram ffs. Trillfendi (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead on an American TV series with wide distribution. WP:N more than clinched. Nate • (chatter) 03:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably passes WP:NACTOR#1. WP:N is clear that passing an SNG is enough to merit an article, and that the state of sourcing in the article is not a reason for deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's wrong. From the guideline you link to: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (Emphasis mine.) Huon (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Bakazaka (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Huon da du ja deutsch al Muttersprache angibst, sag ich es dir mal auf deutsch: es macht den Anschein, dass du unbedingt willst, dass dieser Artikel gelöscht wird (und er stand schon mal zur Diskussion und wurde da auch nicht gelöscht wird). Das lässt sich schon deiner fadenscheinigen Argumentation entnehmen. Wie willst du einer schauspielerin, die in mehreren Werken die Hauptrolle spielte und in mehreren Sprachen Wiki-Artikel hat, die Relevanz absprechen? Keep the article.--Robberey1705 (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robberey1705: WP:AGF. Although I disagree with Huon on this nomination, there are many understandable reasons for him to have his own opinion on this article. The main problem is that most of the recent press interest in EP has been people who want to talk about her role as a mermaid, not about her life and background. If all the people to whom she has explained her prosthetic tail, her study classical sources and watching video of ocean predators, etc. had instead asked about her childhood, travels, etc. then we would have lots of the source material that would make her bio better. Second, the article had much poor sourcing in it but is missing much useful stuff. With the second season about to begin, my Google news search turns up multiple articles (including the Boston Herald article now in there) that were published only within the past week. I am hoping that by WP:HEY, improving the article's sources and information will convince Huon that it belongs here now, even though he was reasonable to think it was very substandard as of a week ago. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR #1, and there are enough reliable sources confirming that (many unreliable sources which would be better removed, but the Dutch source, Variety and the Boston Herald are OK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs)

Comment on interviews I did some research in GAs about actors, specifically Hank Azaria and Halle Berry. They use interviews and other reports of the subject's own words for many facts about the subject's personal life. This fits with our policy WP:ABOUTSELF, where many categories of people's statements about themselves are acceptable RS if "the article is not based primarily on such sources." I also looked at what WP:N for guidance about whether interviews (published by RS independent of the subject) can be considered "significant coverage" required for GNG. Our policy WP:N does not exclude them. Instead, WP:N makes it clear that the reason notability relies on secondary sources (in this case, the publisher of the interview is the secondary source) is to demonstrate "verifiable evaluation of notability" and "objective evidence of notability." HouseOfChange (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there was no consensus to delete the last time the article was nominated. Since then, Powell has played a lead role in a cable TV series and there is more than enough coverage in reliable sources to meet wp:nactor and wp:gng. Dcfc1988 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Huon Um deine anscheinende Paranoia noch ein bisschen anzufüttern: sie hat jetzt auch einen deutschsprachigen Artikel....--Robberey1705 (talk) 16:09, 30 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) 15:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red bloc[edit]

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

I can't find any coverage of this protest tactic in reliable sources. As the article notes, the phrase "red bloc" has a number of meanings, including the Eastern Bloc and various electoral coalitions; an article based on significant coverage in reliable sources could perhaps be pieced together, but would fall foul of WP:COATRACK and WP:FRANKENSTEIN. (This was prodded by me and deprodded by DGG in August 2018.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale; I'm not finding coverage either. Even if notable, this is not the PRIMARYTOPIC, as you can tell by googling "Red bloc". The word often refers to ad hoc electoral coalitions, and would be difficult to disambiguate. b uidhe 05:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find WP:SIGCOV for "red bloc," defined on page as "a distinct contingent at rallies or protests notable for carrying red flags, as well as dressing up in red,... as well as often accompanied with communist or socialist iconography," although I have no reason to doubt that it has happened. Page gives a single (unreliably sourced) instance, and an actual photo of a Trotskyite bloc marching in red (amusingly, they are marching through Melbourne, the most bourgeois city on the planet,) but NOT the sort of sources required by WP:NEOLOGISM. Page offers two more definitions: "The term has also been used as an alternate spelling of Red Block, referring to the Communist nations during the Cold War, and to a coalition of political parties established for the sake of forming a parliamentary majority." these are quite accurate but WP:NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term has a specific use per the example cited in Denmark in one of the sources, but the article isn’t about that, it’s about ‘a bunch of people who show up at demos with red stuff’, a completely meaningless designation.Mccapra (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hamilton[edit]

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

Non-notable individual who never won any awards and none of his musical efforts charted. All of his coverage in reliable sources is WP:INHERITED from Matt Dallas' marriage and adopted child with him and is covered on that article. This person simply doesn't have any standalone notability. N Ø 10:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 13:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. No one knew who he was until their relationship was made public. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 14:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, WP:NOTINHERITED is being misconstrued here. It is not a policy or guideline. It is not a rationale for deletion. It is a type of argument to avoid in arguing to keep an article, according to an essay. So we can set that aside right now. Second, and much more to the point, while Hamilton is frequently mentioned by sources in relation to Matt Dallas, he is also frequently mentioned in his own right, typically in regard to his music or “net worth.” He has an album available on iTunes and Amazon. People actually exist in the real world who like and follow his music, and write about it. Whether Hamilton’s fame took off due to his association with Dallas—in fact, howsoever he or anyone else became famous or known—is entirely beside the point. These other facts I’ve mentioned are the point. It’s a clear keep. Antinoos69 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. "People actually exist in the real world who follow his music" is not a rationale for establishing notability. There are scores of artists who have loyal followings but will otherwise remain in obscurity. As indicated by nominator, he has no charting records (all of one EP in six years, plus any schlep can put an album on Amazon nowadays), nor any work with a reputable label, and his only notability comes on the backs of others like Dallas or Fernando Garibay. If Hamilton is "frequently mentioned in his own right," prove it with links to said sources; this goes for anyone who insists on dangling the carrot of sources magically existing when a subject is listed for AfD. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume you are capable of performing a general internet search for “Blue Hamilton.” The sources I spoke of were found thusly. And stop hinting at or assuming WP:NOTINHERITED; it is irrelevant here. Antinoos69 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that before and come up with zilch, otherwise it'd have been added to the article long ago. I've discerned anyway why you're vehemently contesting the nomination despite the subject's clear lack of notability, and it's no better a reason for keeping the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me but I tried Googling him and only got results for Hamilton the musical. It would be helpful if you linked some stand-alone coverage of him from reliable sources.—N Ø 12:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Individual fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO based on the following.

The sources listed in the article - the first 2 are links to where to buy Blue Hamilton's music, the third is a link to Blue Hamilton's and Matt Dallas' youtube channel, and everything else is short announcements about Matt Dallas and his fiance Blue Hamilton (they got engaged), Matt Dallas and his husband Blue Hamilton (they got married), Matt Dallas and his husband and their son (they adopted). Nothing about Blue Hamilton's life or music. No reliable sources.
I searched Google, Google newspapers, Google books, Google Scholar, also NYT and I did a search "Rolling Stone AND "Blue Hamilton", Billboard AND "Blue Hamilton". Nothing. I find no information about his life or his music. As far as I can find, he and his music have not won any awards. Aurornisxui (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Needs more work to be encyclopedic. Mgbo120 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. The media coverage seems mostly limited to passing mentions and is WP:ROUTINE. b uidhe 05:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn’t matter that “notability is not inherited” isn’t a policy... it’s an act of common sense! Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable musician per nom. --Lockley (talk) 03:40, 30 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) KCVelaga (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg (music group)[edit]

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

It is unlikely that a significant musical group without awards and links.--RTY9099 (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a well-known rock band in Russia and has been going since 69. The proper name for the band is Sankt Peterburg. The book St. Petersburg: A Cultural History by Solomon Volkov refers to the band as a "Trail Blazer". Vladimir Rekshan has a status as well. See page 532 Karl Twist (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say it because you can expand with info from the Russian version of the article. Trillfendi (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NBAND. But move to Sankt Peterburg (band). K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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