Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 January	31 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 delete. czar 01:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Bowling Club[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced and I am unable to find any in-depth coverage, in RS, of this club. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator, I can't find any in depth coverage of the club either and reckon that it fails WP:NORG. Besides that, the article is very poor, having no working references and implying that the club is in Blackburn when in fact it is in Dumbarton. It was created ten years ago by a single issue editor who likely had a CoI. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable. Nigej (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another club pretty much. Doradafan (talk) 19:20, 6 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. Firm consensus that WP:NHOOPS is in fact satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Clack[edit]

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

Nothing here that demonstrates notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOOPS John from Idegon (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHOOPS. He played in Lega Basket Serie A.--TM 00:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NHOOPS as he played in Lega Basket Serie A and was drafted in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Dammit_steve (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated, meets WP:NBASKETBALL in two different ways (Italian League and second round NBA draft pick). I also found substantial sources on newspapers.com (he is from the "dead zone" era of internet sourcing just before papers digitized fully where most papers don't have their content on-line) so he defintely meets WP:GNG in my view. I will add more sources later tonight. Rikster2 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added more sources to the article. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASKETBALL #1 & #2, per all above. WP:TROUT to the nominator for not paying attention. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never played in an NBA game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a policy-based reason. Rikster2 (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Presumed notable per WP:NHOOPS, #1 and #2.^[1] North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kris Clack NBA media biography

Keep Meets two of the notability criteria of WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NHOOPS two different ways. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation). RL0919 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wolf 359[edit]

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

Article is almost entirely in-universe. No evidence that this fictional battle has attracted significant attention from third-party sources beyond those devoted to covering Star Trek-related material. DonIago (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is currently quite short and it is easy to find more coverage such as this, which recounts the special requirements of the creation of this major battle. Multiple works of astronomy include details of the matter in their coverage of the real star system, e.g. Observing the Nearest Stars, David Levy's Guide to Variable Stars. The nomination is therefore false and contrary to our policies WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easy to find sources then it should be easy enough to improve the article to mention such, at which point I'd be happy to reconsider. The article itself has been tagged with no improvement for over a year, though, so the evident assumption of bad faith against me seems unwarranted. Furthermore, when I reviewed the links you provided the mentions that I saw seemed rather token. DonIago (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering this featured in a notable spinoff - Star Trek: Borg - as well as the sheer number of google-books and google-news hits I see for this which have quite some length - it is hard to argue that this Borg/Starfleet battle that resulted in the (fictional) destruction of 39 capital ships and the death of 11,000 men is not notable. I would however question the present title, as Wolf 359 is a real star (and quite nearby to us), and it is quite possible that there is a better know real world Battle of Wolf 359 (that we just don't know about here, but is known on a galactic scale) - it might be prudent for the title to convey this is fictional/Startrek in some way. Icewhiz (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, almost all of the Google hits that I saw (your search may have been more comprehensive than my own) were to Star Trek-related sites or sites that reviewed Star Trek-related material. I had trouble finding sources that discussed the battle beyond "this happened in an episode of TNG", which to my mind doesn't really establish notability...hence the AfD. Even "it was one of the most devastating battles to occur in Star Trek to that point, or since" would do more to establish notability, to my mind. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Obsessive fancruft. All of the out-of-universe references are trivial mere-mentions, nothing in depth about this being any kind of cultural item. There is nothing here that would not be a paragraph at the parent article. Per Category:Star Trek wars and battles most of these are, or have been, redirected off to their parent episode article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation). Wikipedia is not a fan Wiki like Memory Alpha, which discusses Star Trek events like Wolf 359 from an in-universe perspective.TH1980 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Fountains of Bryn Mawr and TH1980. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FMC Electronic Technical School[edit]

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

A collection of fluff and promotion. Largely based on dead links and the school website. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the dead links have now been fixed, so the article seems to have enough references from reliable sources. (If you are considering deleting an article, always use the "fix dead links" link on the article's history page first.) Articles about non-profit schools are generally kept. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy or guideline? The Banner talk 10:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, in this case, the college clearly passes the general notability guideline so there's no need for you to make your usual snarky comments. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is asking for policies and guidelines a snarky comment? The Banner talk 11:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to search using the Portuguese name:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did my friend. In several variations. The Banner talk 11:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

If you did then why did you nominate the article for deletion? The books and academic papers found by those searches get this through the general notability guideline many times over. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not look at the present article? The Banner talk 07:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know that notability is an attribute of an article subject, not of the present state of an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I know you are only interested in keeping an article, regardless of the state. And that you will never do a thing to improve an article. The Banner talk 08:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as that being a personal attack a quick look through my contributions shows that it is a lie. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a predictable snarky comment. The Banner talk 11:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing attention to a personal attack and blatant lie may be predictable, but it's certainly not "snarky". Look at the evidence, rather than live in your own universe where lies are truth. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santa Rita do Sapucaí. That article already covers this school to the extent it is covered in reliable sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the notability guidelines for schools and we gain nothing by removing informative articles like this. Jzsj (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We should keep Wikipedia free from advertising, and this thing is just that... The Banner talk 14:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC) and do not forget to state that you are the writer of this[reply]
  - We should distinguish between advertisement and accurate accounts of a good work and what it is achieving. (Please give a specific reference to where it says authors of articles must identify themselves when they argue against deletion. Does authoring an article necessarily indicate more bias than wanting to delete an article?) Jzsj (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a case of politeness and common sense to say that you are the author. It puts your reply into perspective...
    - And for an organisation doing good work, you should have more sources available than just their own website. The Banner talk 19:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - A quick search reveals this independent verification of their "Futurist Projects Fair". Jzsj (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        A quick look reveals that you used the own website 9 times. The Banner talk 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Is 9 out of 21 so bad for an area where a "common sense" approach might lead us to accept that the various media are not as prevalent as in the US? Jzsj (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        With a common sense approach you would have left out the info that you can not back up with independent sources. The Banner talk 20:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you admit to ignoring WP:SELFSOURCE ? Jzsj (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember this one: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive978#Pre-_and_post-nominals_discussion_needs_reopening? The Banner talk 21:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please someone explain why WP:SELFSOURCE doesn't contradict the statement above that you must leave out "info that you can not back up with independent sources". I have no desire to waste anyone's time, or my own time, but if one is so clearly in the right then let them come forth with specific reasons, to establish their credibility. @The Banner: Jzsj (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read that discussion of your topic ban again, especially the parts about poor selection of sources, promo and WP:IDHT. That is exact the same behaviour what you are doing here now. The Banner talk 21:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are answers that have helped me to learn proper policy and answers that are vague and unhelpful like the one you just gave here. Your record of nominating for deletion 68 of my articles that by consensus were not deleted, diminishes for me your reliability as an impartial adviser. As to the articles on development centres that were deleted, I regret having been misled by the ready acceptance of these without any tags by the reviewers. Jzsj (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The classic "I did not hear that". The Banner talk 22:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG is satisfied by the sourcing and I don't think @Billhpike:'s reasoning (which is functionally WP:REDUNDANTFORK, I believe) is legitimate, given that there is far more sourced content here than there is in his suggest redirect target. Even filtering out anything selfsourced, that would hold true. I wouldn't say the "discussion" (to be generous) going on above is particularly helping this AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:18, 6 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) 22:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ronzio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's really telling when the article says "He played only ten roles in his life." I found a couple of mentions about him in books about Clint Eastwood, but that's all they were. Does not meet WP:NACTOR Aurornisxui (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE found subject fails GNG and WP:ACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:16, 6 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) 22:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Jelley PPSWA SPF[edit]

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

This artist seems to fail WP:BIO with a lack of independent (not from galleries she works with, societies she is a member of, ...) indepth sources about her. Fram (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have added one reference but it only refers to her in passing, and I cannot find others. Tacyarg (talk)
Delete one-hundred percent pure promotion, without independent critical coverage of any sort. An external search turned up nothing. There is zero notability here, just someone trying to promote themselves.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. L. Hunley JROTC Award[edit]

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

This article does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG for several reasons: a. I am unable to find any sources for it outside of the Sons of Confederate Veterans Page b. It also is not an official JROTC award, further throwing into question its notabilityGaruda28 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Per the reasons I have stated above. Garuda28 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from nominator; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. See WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t realize, thanks for pointing that out! Garuda28 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JROTC awards are not notable. This is the sole entry in category:Awards and decorations of the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps. Further, this is not an award from the JROTC. Rather, it's an award given by a private heritage organization to its members' children. It is just one of many awards the organization bestows, mostly to its members.[1] All of the citations in the article are sourced to the organization itself. Even on their websites, they only give perfunctory mention of this award. The topic does not qualify for any aspect of WP:GNG. Mobi Ditch (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:02, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paisalo Digital Limited[edit]

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

I see nothing that makes this notable. Fails WP:NCORP. ^{[Username Needed]} 12:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All available sources seem to be 1) the company's own literature 2) press releases written by the company themselves 3) small, insignificant mentions in other works. None of that is sufficient for a Wikipedia article. --Jayron 32 13:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what Jayron said above. Not enough there to warrant an article. Killiondude (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Baxtrom[edit]

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

Several issues. The article appears closer to an advertisement than a neutral WP:POV. It focuses more on the restaurant owned by Baxtom than Baxtom himself WP:COATRACK, and it fails to establish Baxtom's notability; as with the article itself, most references either focus on the restaurant itself or only mentioning the restaurant in passing; only one has any reasonable length on Baxtrom, and even there the primary focus of the article is his restaurant. As such, I believe it fails WP:N - it's possible that the restaurant itself is sufficiently notable, but I don't believe merging is the correct solution in this case, given the WP:POV issues found herein. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Fails POV, GNG, and multiple other criteria. I think it's possibly a COI as well. Skirts89 (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Sources are about the subject's restaurant. Restaurant has good coverage, might be good as part of a (yet to be created) section on restaurants in the Farm to table article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep based on awards. The chef is arguably the reason why they have the fame they do. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except for one, the awards are all won by the Restaurant, not the Chef. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 05:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say but I disagree. As the owner, he is responsible to a great extent, for the restaurant’s success. Ok, example. Steven Spielberg’s films were critical and commercial successes. Nominated for numerous awards during his career. But he personally never won an Oscar until much later in his career. But no one argued his role in the success of his films. I am saying the same thing here. He deserves credit for the success of his business. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So does someone with a PhD. Unfortunately, their PhD doesn't make them notable, as these awards doesn't make this man. What we need to discuss is whether this man is notable enough to be here, not whether he deserves to be here.-- NoCOBOL (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Assertions that article or references cover the restaurant not Greg Baxtrom are unsupported. See [2] and [3] where Baxtrom is mentioned more frequently than Olmsted. The restaurant is not mentioned until the second half of the article. Clearly the reason Baxtrom is notable is because of Olmsted but he is clearly notable and given the awards and coverage, it is not WP:TOOSOON for an article on this subject. As to WP:NPOV, that's a subjective assessment and I don't see a serious issue here. In any case, deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kvng's sources. There are multiple, reliable, and sufficiently extensive sources which are primarily about the subject. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron 32 13:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the second source suggested by Kvng is certainly Sig Cov regarding Baxtrom. The former is more marginal, with functionally every paragraph not dedicated to the restaurant at least mixed in with it. That said, I do believe it's a marginal issue, and a reasonable case can be made for retention. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:24, 6 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 Draftify. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trident's Wake[edit]

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

Not notable. Not covered extensively by any reliable source. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft pending release. "Scheduled to be released" is a tipoff for concerns about whether it will ever be released, or amount to anything if it does. bd2412 T 15:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

draftify Entirely non suitable on Wikipedia mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 16:00, 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 merge to School of Infantry and Tactics. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Army Airborne School[edit]

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

The references in this article make no mention of the Bangladesh Army Airborne School. There are no news media reports or any book mention which verify the existence of this institution. SRS 00 t@lk, 12:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of Infantry and Tactics. " Bangladesh Airborne School" was used at least in the past - see [4][5]. However, it seems that per our article (not a source) and the Bangladeshi military (better- about self) - see their webpage - " In 1982, 'Special Warfare School' was merged with this institution as 'Special Warfare Wing'. ".Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of Infantry and Tactics per Icewhiz's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Please see recent AfDs involving other Bangladesh military units. Skirts89 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to School of Infantry and Tactics. Lorstaking (talk) 10:25, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Goertz[edit]

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

This subject is not notable. There are not enough references which contain significant coverage about the subject rather than passing mentions. Notability is not inherited. Z359q (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom's claims are the opposite of reality. Very in-depth coverage specifically about this person from the likes of the Huffington Post, Billboard, Vice and Inverse. [6][7][8][9]. How the nom, whom I notice has very limited editing history, came to the conclusion there are only "passing mentions" of this person when much of this in-depth coverage was already in the article is beyond me. There seems to be some other kind of motivation here. Oakshade (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep FYI to above editor, The Huffington Post is problematic as a reliable source per numerous source discussions, but others cited are good (although Noisey is a bit "if-fy"). There is additional trade industry and mainstream recognition not cited in the article about her role as editor of Mad. Although they are nearly all tangential mentions, they cumulatively add weight to the notability argument even if they are not outright qualifying criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The HuffPost is problematic when it comes to accuracy based on bias, just as Fox News is problematic for the same reason. They both are, however, indicative of notability to topics they decide to give coverage to as both are very popular outlets. Noisey is in fact a part of Vice (magazine) and I've corrected my text as so. Oakshade (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-assessing Actually Noisey was merely acquired by Vice, but it is not the same thing, as content from it under it's old business model was subjected to different editorial standards. And, in fact, upon second look, I realize the article in Noisey was actually written by the subject herself, which means it's disqualified as a source lacking independent, third party recognition. This lead me to double checking Inverse. It may be a decent source, but I have my qualms about websites that solicit content ("pitch your ideas and write for us"...) See: https://www.inverse.com/about/contact . As for Huffington Post, it has problems beyond it's biases; in fact just last year they overhauled their business model after having grown to publishing over 100,000 contributors providing unvetted content without editorial control. See: https://variety.com/2018/digital/news/huffington-post-ends-unpaid-contributor-blogger-program-1202668053/. My hunch is to still lean keep in that the Billboard article has genuine merit and the subject's professional credits might meet some sort of qualifying criteria, but I'll need more time to research. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... for now The only reliable source here is Billboard. Trillfendi (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment Just for clarity and full disclosure to the closer and any participants of this AFD, the editor Oakshade is the original writer of this article. Z359q (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. As you are interested in "clarity and full disclosure" and your first few edits in the limited topics you've edited on demonstrate advanced wiki-editing knowledge, can you please disclose what account you are or have also edited as?Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If anyone has a problem with this article, the WP:TOOSOON standard might make a little sense. But even though she doesn't have a heck of a lot of media notice, the above arguments about reliable sources from "Keep" voters are much more convincing that the nominator's claim of non-notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:11, 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 10:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think that DOOMSDAYER520 might be right in his argument, the question really is, whether for a musician / artist the sources available are satisfying or not. I don't have much experience with the specifics of artists yet, but to me it seems that they are not met. Talking about the quality of sources is good, but even if one is valid (which Billboard seems to be) it doesn't seem like there are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". --Ruhri Jörg 10:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can this subject’s role as Mad Magazine editor be clarified? The source cited here is a blog based apparently on the subjects own social media post. Yet the Magazine’s own press release cites Bill Morrison as the editor, backed up by a story in Washington Post (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/06/29/a-new-editor-a-new-home-but-mad-magazine-still-takes-sharp-aim-at-trump-and-roseanne/?utm_term=.c89424edb6ea). Allie Goertz is not mentioned in either. It may be she has a junior staff position (along with many other people) that includes the word “editor” in a job description, but for notability purposes, unless one is the overall editor (which may be the case with Bill Morrison?) it likely isn’t enough to count. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, she is an editor, but not the senior editor. Oakshade (talk) 23:01, 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. There appears to be a general consensus against deleting. However the merge proposals were insufficiently specific, so I am going to call this a Keep and discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article talk pages. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of the United States for 1901[edit]

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

The article has no content. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article, and the 1902 version, does say something - it says that New York required car owners to produce their own plates, and that the other states had nothing. Whether this is sufficient to warrant an article, I cannot say - but removing it will imply either that New York started their plate organization in 1903, or that the states that did start their organization in 1903 started it earlier than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoCOBOL (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with deletion. There is content in both articles, and there is far more content than many other starter articles. Just because these articles will never be filled with a picture of the license plate from all 50 states is not a reason for deletion. This is part of a series of 119 articles that show the annual history of license plates in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia. To remove this article would remove the early history of the automobile industry, individual state history of how vehicle license plates evolved across the country, and what has become an area of collector activity. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The OP has jumped the gun a bit as the page was only created 12 days ago, would recommend moving to draftspace for article creator to work on it before moving pack to article space. Nightfury 09:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge everything from 1901 to 1905; rather than having a table showing no actual plate designs and indicating the need for owners to supply their own, have a table indicating the date at which these requirements were initiated. bd2412 T 15:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per bd2412. There's simply no sign of this being a topic that justifies per-year articles for these dates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:39, 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 10:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for the early 1900s ones. I think it might be better if we have one page for all years and then create some sort of a template that contains all of them. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 05:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been on line for less than 30 days, and some additional material has been added since the article was listed here. Leaving the article will give other editors the ability to add new information and keep the series of articles intact back to its true beginnings rather than try and force the material into a merged article. Zcarstvnz (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Council of Graduate Schools. Mz7 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Master's in Social Sciences and Humanities[edit]

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

Uninformative, unreferenced and no claim of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Council of Graduate Schools - it's not a very good article, either, but at least all of its programs would be in one place. If not merged, then I have no issue with deletion. Risker (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 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) 10:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Council of Graduate Schools. Other article is not certainly big but requires some cleanup. Merging this article will be an improvement. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:16, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food First Information and Action Network[edit]

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

This article was created several years ago, and aside from several good faith promotional edits (resulting in an unusually large revert on my part), bot edits, and Wikignoming, has remained largely abandoned. I haven't found any sources on Google. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding FIAN International: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: I found some indication of their involvement in events associated with the Committee on World Food Security ( [10], [11]) but notability is not inherited and FIAN does not seem close enough to CFS to make Redirect an option. There is also a joint submission to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights with Via Campesina ([12]), but not enough to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 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) 10:21, 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 redirect to List of Victoria's Secret models. Per WP:ATD and redirects are cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Laine[edit]

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

While I think this qualifies as an A7 speedy deletion, I’d rather not jump the gun. Now, as far as I’m aware, The Sun is banned as a “source” on this website like the Daily Mail is. And that’s the only source given here. A marijuana possession arrest is not only uneventful and trivial, but it uncontestably DOES NOT contribute to notability (the tag has been there since the article was created). This article does not present any career for this model (no... a slideshow of pictures from the VS Fashion Show isn’t it at all), only one job, and it’s been impossible for me to find any legitimate source for her. Let’s be honest: this as Too Soon. Trillfendi (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delte a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Victoria's Secret Fashion Show~~ List of Victoria's Secret models per WP:ATD-R; a functional search term. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it went that route, List of Victoria's Secret models would be a more apt destination. Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anzela Abbasi[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability isn't inherited; maybe WP:TOOSOON. samee converse 23:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Samee: Will you please explain how, instead of just giving vote? 77.243.187.60 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Actress playing leading and supporting roles since two years (then how Too Soon)? She has 3 projects Gila, Baby and Main Haar Nahi Manoun Gi in which she appeared in main roles for which she passes WP:ENT, She also passes GNG by little margin considering [13] this source from reputed news The Express Tribune as well as this [14] from Business Recorder and others avail in article. Article is well sourced and every single information is verified by reputable source. 196.62.192.100 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Passing mentions in press release are not significant coverage. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actors career is equally important like significant coverage. What about multiple roles she has played? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.187.60 (talk) 13:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:The GNG and notability for actors as actor has to passed only one notability criteria whether GNG or NACTOR, She is passing WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.243.187.60 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Note to closing admin: None of the delete voters have made policy based arguments instead saying Fails Notability and its WP:TOO SOON without giving any explanations. 77.243.187.60 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pakistanpedia. --Saqib (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doubts are already answered by experienced user here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/881237668 77.243.187.60 (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR, with major roles in three blue-linked TV shows ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable .. television shows". RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've no idea why this has caused such dissension. It's a clear-cut satisfaction for WP:NACTOR criterion 1 as already noted. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mercer[edit]

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

Advertorially-slanted WP:BLP of a sportsman and television host, referenced entirely to his own primary source content about himself with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own websites verify that they exist -- the notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia hinges on whether media can be shown to have done journalism about him, not on what he publishes about himself. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete My search for sources didn't give me anything to show he meets the GNG. The fact that he has a TV show would indicate some notability and I would change my vote if someone could show me some significant independent coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 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. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, the improvements made while this AFD was open clearly show that the complaints raised were fixable and therefore not appropriate for a deletion discussion. Whether this should be merged to the parent article can be addressed through normal channels of editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sudbury schools[edit]

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

This is essentially a list of external links to school websites. Only a handful (two?) of the schools on this list actually have articles. WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM. Ajf773 (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If it had been a list with wikilinks to these schools, it would have been fine, but this is not the case, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKFARM not a linkfarm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only serves as a directory of external links, violating WP:NOTLINKFARM and having no encyclopedic value --DannyS712 (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an un-encyclopedic directory of links.MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - There is encyclopedic value to this article most definitely but the current layout is poor and realistically each section needs a few paragraphs .... I've only seen one wikilink which for me isn't a justification for keeping, Delete but no objections to recreation (providing it isn't just one huge long list of schools!). –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SOFIXIT pretty much applies to my own comment - The layout can indeed be fixed, As I said it has encyclopedic value and I still stand by that. –Davey2010^Talk 17:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say "Keep, obviously", because this is a valid list-article, as you all can see that Sudbury school is a valid article and it is valid to split out a list of notable examples. Y'all can have complaints about the state of the list (e.g. that it includes external links instead of constructing inline references), which can be addressed by your tagging the list and/or writing your complaints at its Talk page, but it is a valid list. It is simply fine, as an editorial matter, to split this out from the indisputably valid Sudbury school article. Also note that we can have a category of Sudbury schools and to have a list corresponding to the category.

By the way, I don't think wp:NOTDIR applies because the list does not include a bunch of ephemera like telephone numbers, which is what NOTDIR is about.

wp:LINKFARM does not apply because this does not have an external links section which is overgrown. It has an external links section with no entries whatsoever.

Editors should not cite essays which merely have a superficial suggestion from their name that they might apply, when they simply do not apply at all, IMHO, and if they do so repeatedly in multiple AFDs then I think the community should get around to banning them from participating in AFDs.--Doncram (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam is no different to having telephone numbers and thus still fails NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say "Keep, obviously", because of precedent and this is a valid list-article, as you all can see that Sudbury school is a valid article and it is valid to split out a list of notable examples. We have had List of democratic schools since 2006. Comparing with telephone numbers is silly.

One has just opened on my patch- my first question was what is a Sudbury school. That school is notable, in being a first of type, though it not a secondary school- and only part-time- so I would put it on the edge- I needed to know more- the Sudbury school article told me that- and now the question where are they? The list article answers that and influences my opinion on the school in general.

Again the linkfarm argument is attractive until you Google List of Sudbury schools- we are the only entry, the collated information has not been published elsewhere on line. Please read WP:NOTLINKFARM Paragraph 1. "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." hence this has been broken out into a separate article. ClemRutter (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing to the List of democratic schools article isn't fair, because that article actually has a list of schools that have their own articles. This is a just list of schools with links to their websites. If I were to remove all the spammy external links (which I actually did to the List of democratic schools article) and what do you have? A stub about Sudbury school, which already exists. If there are ever enough articless on individual Sudbury schools, then this article can be recreated. However, unitl then, it's just a target for spam. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ELLIST it is against common practice to have lists that are comprised of external links. Ajf773 (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, per wp:ELLIST the list should be edited to remove the brackets. Not a big deal. See the "good" and "bad" examples there. Please do go ahead and make the change. --Doncram (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sudbury school and clean up. My suggestions - get rid of external links, closed schools, proposed schools, and all schools that are not known to be Sudbury schools. Aurornisxui (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I prefer "Keep" and oppose "Merge" because I think it is a reasonable editorial decision to choose to split out a list of examples in general, and here while there is no dispute that there are many notable examples, the specifics might be debatable. It seems best to keep the main article on Sudbury schools free of controversy over characteristics of specific schools. It's okay for there to be disagreement and discussion and even negative tagging, but better at a split-off list-article, not detracting from the main. --Doncram (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its better to have this list to its own rather than cluttering related pages. Easily fixable for content and format, and matches with lists of schools we have for other education methods. -- Netoholic @ 20:54, 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) 09:35, 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 no consensus. Was no consensus before and after the first relist, with no new input since. RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Sheinman[edit]

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

Only two citations for years, warning against WP:GNG for almost a year, content of article reeks of fluff. Not notable Edit: In particular, a little-known artist as mentioned. ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update : Most of the references added since I made this are passing mentions of the subject, and the text is cursed with fluff and tangential information. Little to amend the GNG problems....--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 16:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerious references and clearly notable. It is not true to claim that the references added today are only 'passing mentions of the subject';- Sheinman, or her exhibitions, are clearly the main, or indeed the only, topic in almost all of the ten references now in the article. In addition, the article has been edited to remove anything that could possabily be considered 'fluff' or 'tangential'.14GTR (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little-known artist with no significant coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG. May also be a case of COI. Skirts89 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added more references. 6 of the articles are specifically about her work. 5 are about her work and the work of other artists in group exhibitions. That meets WP:GNG, and perhaps WP:ARTIST #3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of .... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", though I am sure there would be different opinions about whether her work is "significant or well-known". RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the reasoning you provided, it seems more like your position would be "Weak Keep"? I contest that this artist is significant or well-knowm; the sources listed are so typical that thousands of more blatantly-irrelevant artists would get their own articles when they have not contributed anything of particular note.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 17:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry but this artist does not meet "WP:ARTIST #3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" at all! in order to have the body of work be well-known, there have to be lots of sources about it, in-depth. A bunch of event announcements, trivial mentions and non-independent sources indicate only something happened or was created by the artist, not that anyone came to the show, thought it was interesting, reviewed it in a reputable journal, wrote a book about it, presented it in a major ehibition or added it to a museum collection. If her work is well-known, why can't I find any decent writing about it? Be careful with WP:ARTIST, it is meant for real artists and not those who might end up with a Wiki page supported by passing mentions and trivial coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm fairly neutral on this one. I see both sides, but I will say that we have certainly kept many articles that were much further from satisfying ARTIST #3. --Theredproject (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources currently in the article show sufficient coverage. feminist (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a roughly even split in discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:37, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CALinnovates[edit]

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

Cant find any notability. Only google pings are to social media profiles with one minor article thrown in the mix. Possible COI/paid editing issues too Nightfury 11:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 11:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: Some commentary coverage can be found, such as "Mysterious Campaign Appears to be the Latest Salvo in Battle Over Net Neutrality" (Robert Faturechi, ProPublica) and more recently (subsequent to the previous AfD) "AT&T sends in startup shill to shake up Cali's net neutrality safeguards" (Kieren McCarthy, The Register) and this Gizmodo item describing an "astroturf campaign". AllyD (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The history of the current article instance shows attempts to curate its content. As it stands now, the second sentence about "taking third-way approaches" is unsourced and somewhat WP:PEACOCKish. However, unless that suggests WP:TNT, these are matters for normal editing, possibly with the aid of page protection. But regarding the notability criteria which are central to this discussion, commentary articles such as those that I cited in my comment indicate a level of attention from multiple sources which may be enough for WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:35, 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 and redirect to Pierre Péladeau. To eliminate any BLP concerns, will delete the history before redirecting. If editors want to add any BLP-appropriate info about her in the target article, they are welcome to do so. RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Péladeau[edit]

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

Problematic WP:BLP of a person notable only for legal troubles. Notability is not inherited, so happening to have a more notable father than most other people with arrest records does not make her special -- but neither the significance of her alleged crimes themselves, nor the amount of media coverage they're actually shown to have received, are enough to make her special either. For WP:BLPPRIVACY reasons we really just should not be maintaining this at all, as there are simply no grounds on which to claim that any of this is of enduring public interest. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is also notable for the civil litigation she has been involved in over much of her adult life, such as [15] and [16]. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civil litigation over medical bills doesn't make a person notable either. Bearcat (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Eastmain makes a compelling case for notability. Per sourcing, coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is NOT inherited. You all know that! Starting the article as “the daughter of” is the worst type of red flag. No reliable sources have been presented. (Being in a lawsuit isn’t notability unless it has national implications). Trillfendi (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I will be truly objective as I will have to admit you are right "this" time. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pierre Péladeau, where a sentence or two about her legal & personal struggles might be appropriate. --Lockley (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, negative bio about minor court cases. This should not be kept under any circumstances. very very weak support for a redirect to Pierre Péladeau--DBig Xrayᗙ 05:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Pierre Péladeau, as this article is currently undersourced. I would honestly have to say that she's not really independently notable as well, so that is why I will have to go with merge and redirect, as the information about her would be good for adding solely to that article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. BabbaQ (talk) 10:50, 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. czar 02:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HP Operations Manager[edit]

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

I tagged this article a year ago for possible lack of notability. I cannot see a claim of notability in the article and some of the links are not reliable. I am not honestly sure if it meets WP:NSOFT - it may possibly meet the point about "multiple printed third-party manuals". Tacyarg (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to add that I have looked for other coverage and not found it. Tacyarg (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note that WP:NSOFT is an essay and not a guideline. — Newslinger talk 10:14, 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xander Kiriakis[edit]

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

This article fails to meet the general notability guidelines and Wikipedia's notability of fiction, as well as the notability guidelines set up at the Soap Opera WikiProject. This article relies solely on poorly-written plot detail, and both sources are purely based on the character's casting of an actor that is barely notable on their own regard. This character's article would be better suited at the character list it is also placed at. livelikemusic talk! 01:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The character is at least as well documented, both in terms of article body and in terms of references, as other characters in this soap opera. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this article should not be deleted, as I believe the plot is well written and referenced. If anything, more editors should work on making the article better instead of nominating it for deletion. Thank you. --Princessruby (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard character actor article for the series.scope_creep^Talk 00:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Days_of_Our_Lives_characters_(2010s)#Xander_Kiriakis where the character is already well-represented, as livelikemusic pointed out. --Lockley (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 08:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In cases where application of general notability is uncertain or marginal, there is something to be said for consistency, and other equally well documented characters have articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we need a guideline on television characters or soap opera characters? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Robert McClenon's arguments. – Braxton C. Womack^{talk to me!} 05:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Just like last time around... Sandstein 09:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Abrea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to faint passing mentions. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT We need Spanish language input here. I see two ES-language sources which may indicate sigcov 1 2. There may be others. EDIT: and as noted in the previous delete discussions, no, something is not just a primary source because it is published by a publisher related to the Mormons. FOARP (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As pointed out in the previous discussion we have sources such as the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History, edited by notable academics. To exclude it based on who the publishing company it was published by was is to create a very broad and troubling precedent for exclusion of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that source provide significant coverage or fleeting passing mentions? One source being existent does not create automatic notability; there needs to be significant coverage. Furthermore, multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AFD was only two months ago, why has a new AFD been opened so quickly? FOARP (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two months is plenty of time to allow for notability to be demonstrated, such as by adding sources to the article. However, if said sources don't exist, the subject is non-notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the two Spanish language books that FOARP found are barely more than passing mentions. A google of News and Books isn't turning up much else. So, we just have the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History—one source, possibly not significant and/or independent. If there isn't significant coverage beyond LDS-published sources, that's a good sign that he's not notable. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 13:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument last time, and I'm not seeing any new arguments to sway me otherwise. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia, but your !vote in the last AfD was largely based upon this premise. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no presumed notability for any subject, with the possible exception of species with an accepted taxonomy. The point has to do with which subjects have encyclopedic value. The problem with religious subjects is that Southern Baptists don't write about Hare Krishnas, the Hindus don't write about Assyrian Orthodox, Presbyterians don't write about Jehovah's Witnesses, and general secular media/academia doesn't cover any of it (unless there's some juicy scandal involved.) That does not make the subjects un-encyclopedic, in this case it is a subject which demonstrably influenced the history of the faith millions and millions of people adhere to. Therefore sometimes we need to use the best sources available, which are going to be published by the LDS/Presbyterians/Jehovah's Witnesses/Hare Krishnas. There's no indication in this particular instance it was influenced by the subject, but of course healthy skepticism needs to be applied here regarding NPOV because the subject and publisher belong to the same religious sect. So if the source says "This person was a saint with no faults, and he cured cancer in many" then it has no place here, but biographical facts, and details regarding their influence within the faith can and should be used. It is my opinion and !vote therefore that the encyclopedia would be poorer without this topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is the bare minimum of what is required to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. These necessary sources appear to be nonexistent. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact I don't see an issue with the sources presented in the article per above, there's [17], [18]. I realize there is disagreement here regarding what constitutes "independent", but my reading of our current policy regarding independent sources would indicate to me that these sources are potentially (likely) biased, but are independent as there's no evidence Abrea has any editorial oversight or influence on these publications. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm really confused. This is clearly a debate without a consensus. All the sources have been found and there's good faith disagreement about their value and applicability. It was rightly and accurately closed as no consensus after 14 days of discussion, and then that close was taken to DRV and summarily overturned as a BADNAC, even though that's exactly the outcome envisaged in WP:RELIST. If it had been allowed to stay at DRV, then I would have expected a bit of a waggy finger at the closer for their generic closing statement and failure to engage on their talk page, but a resounding endorse for their decision. Why are we here?—S Marshall T/C 00:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to go off-topic making this a DRV2, so this will be short. I feel that 1) a total of five users participating is rather minimal, along with 2) the "tied" nature of !votes herein, warranted a second relist, among other reasons, such as the closer ignoring my two requests for discussion regarding the matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this deserved a re-list because a major part of the discussion took place immediately before "closing time", and I thought it would be better to give other editors an opportunity to react to that discussion, and that while consensus may not develop it certainly has a chance to. I agree with NA1000 and the DelRev reviewer that WP:BADNAC applies by criteria #2 and 3. #2 in that the positions currently are far apart, and #3 in that his AfD record shows a high number of "kept" nominations. This is not meant to belittle the original closer, or that they did anything "wrong". I merely am of the opinion, and I think NA1000 agrees, that relisting in this instance is the better option. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Wikipedians are a secular bunch and most are uninterested in religious topics, but I suppose there could plausibly be a sudden rush of new participants. I hope that's the outcome. If it isn't, I feel that it would be very inappropriate to relist again.—S Marshall T/C 18:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a third relist would be inappropriate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually two comments about 78.26's point above. First, academics and journalists write about faiths other than their own all the time, and if anything smaller denominations and sects (even, say, the Gülen movement or Heaven's Gate) are overrepresented in academic and popular literature. Second, the official LDS sources may be reliable for some information on the subject, and they are reliable indicators of the church's position on something. But they are not independent of the church, as the church has a vested interest in building up the name and reputation of people whom it is presenting as messengers of doctrine and teaching handed down from the apostles. The subject doesn't have to walk over and influence the PR writer in her cubicle. If both are being directed by the same organization, then the PR writer's coverage of the subject is not independent. Bakazaka (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a WP:BEFORE search in Spanish brought up almost nothing, and nothing of any sourceable notes. The LDS sources in the article are functionally WP:PRIMARY, and the secondary source here [19] isn't WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:08, 6 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) 13:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Ellison Smith Sr.[edit]

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

The article claims this artist is a very notable person who won a lot of awards for his work and did a lot of impressive things. The problem is, there are no sources I can find to verify any of it, no hits on GBooks or GNews and a single Newspapers.com hit for a wedding announcement (without the middle name there is a hit about an exhibition somewhere but no more). Fails WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 08:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. So Why 08:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST. Skirts89 (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any WP:RS in a database search. --Theredproject (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing found in RS. The article looked like a scrapbook; I removed some of the atrociously placed images.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – besides the above, the article is a vanity page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:05, 5 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) 13:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden ramps[edit]

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

Not notable Mccapra (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 10:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 10:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contrary to the nomination, I am fairly certain that Atlantic Wall wooden beach obstacles (an issue in the Normandy landings) are quite notable, e.g. coverage in - [20][21]. The name of the present article is incorrect - this should be Hochpfählen ("high stake"), Hemmbalken, or something similar. There is perhaps merit for a standalone, however we already cover the beach application in Rommel's asparagus#Atlantic Wall defenses. Since this is a poorly sourced fork, with the wrong title, and with contents inferior to Rommel's asparagus#Atlantic Wall defenses - I'm at delete. Had the article been better developed (to merit a spinoff from Rommel's asparagus or had salvageable mergeable material) - I would have !voted otherwise. Since the article title is quite wrong, in my view, there is no need for a redirect. Icewhiz (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reference in the article is to an analysis of a movie. @Icewhiz: has provided a better reference in his delete comment. Including "Hochpfählen" in Atlantic Wall might be useful but I don't see a need for a redirect.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Icewhiz. While the Atlantic Walll defences are notable, I don't see anything meriting an article, or even a redirect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 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. Based on the comments, no prejudice against merge discussions on the talk page, but there is consensus against deletion. czar 02:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests[edit]

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

We have already 2017–2019 Iranian protests at hand, where both political and economic protests are covered. Seems like a redundant duplicate to me. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Mhhossein ^talk 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some background on this can be found in a discussion/merge proposal here from earlier last year, which petered out without any conclusion. Either way, if the nom statement is correct, the proper course of action is merging, not deleting. ansh 666 22:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insight ansh. Please note that this main article was moved to the proper tile and I don't think we can have a title covering 2018–2019 protests since we're just in Jan 2019 and there's no unrest, unless users are predicting protests in 2019. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is quite a bit of overlap with the 2017–18 Iranian protests page, and I'm sure some redundancies could be dealt with by merging the topics. That said, I also worry that too much will be crammed in a small space, and a split will eventually be required anyways. I see two ways to split the topic: by year (having 2019 be separate, perhaps), or by separating strikes and protests, with strikes being a subtopic nestled under the general protests topic. 31.54.34.61 (talk) 04:08, 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) 20:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At most this should be a merge of the two articles - there is no basis for deletion (labor strikes aren't covered in 2017–18 Iranian protests). I am, however, weakly opposed to a merge of the two since 2017–18 Iranian protests is on political anti-regime protests, whereas this article - 2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests - is on strikes (and protests) related to labor relations. Furthermore, looking at other wikis - notably including the Persian wiki - it seems editors on other wikis see these as distinct as well. Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some cleaning up is needed but deletion is not yet the answer for a notable topic. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep. Per sources and the info they provide. This seems to be part of a series of strange AfDs concerning Iran politics. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Stefka. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I, myself, feel that the protests are not separately notable, but I do emphasize with the points made by Icewhiz. 100% against delete, though. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand beyond a timeline of events. KingAntenor (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Street Real Estate[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The only source given is a Bloomberg trade listing. A search returns nothing significant other than their website and trade listings. No WP:SIGCOV. Previously PROD deleted as Harrison Street Real Estate Capital. --Cabayi (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had not initially realized it, but there were earlier versions that very clearly showed notability , such as [22]. An apparent representative of thecompany removed them citing compliance concerns. Some of the material they removed was uncited puffery, but most of it was plan description of the firm and and its 12 billion dollar assets under management. I do not think we have ever deleted a US investment firm of that size--I have previous suggested a dividing line at $1 billion, and more recently suggested $2 billion would be more realistic . I am not an opponent of articles on large corporations, only of promotional articles. The compliance concerns, if real , are a matter the company would have to discuss with WMF Legal department, as provided for at [23]

I am in process of restoring what I consider appropriate sourced content to the article DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fair play to DGG for doing a repair job. Under other circumstances I'd feel sheepish and withdraw the nomination. However the "apparent representative of the company" who cited compliance concerns was also the author of the article rendering it a COI and undisclosed paid editing matter. I'm unwilling to be their cat's paw. Cabayi (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even in cases where its a banned editor, we do not delete if a regular editor takes responsibility for it. Undeclared paid editing from the company themselves , while a serious problem, is not in the same obnoxious category as the rings of paid editors who advertise. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't volunteer my time to help a business advertise. Cabayi (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. But I do volunteer my time to make sure we have articles on the most notable businesses. Whether to do this by modifying what was initially a promotional article is left up to each individual--nobody need do it, and if nobody chooses to do it the promotional article gets deleted. But we do not prevent someone from doing it by trying to delete the fixed article. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 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) 20:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Wagstaff[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biographical article of questionably notable journalist. No major indication that his work has made a significant impact. Risker (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, slow keep. The two sources from New York and L.A Times give a depth analysis of his work Loved150 (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually...the L.A. Times article is a brilliant example of WP:CRYSTAL; they said he was "writing a book" on Suharto, our article says he *did* write that book, and the reality is that someone else wrote the book and he was its editor. The LA Times article is a useless reference, and the statement in our article is out-and-out false. Adding: The NY Times article is about Nigel Oakes, and only mentions Wagstaff in passing; he is not the subject of that reference source. Risker (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete passing mentions, especially when the writer cares so little as to not distinguish writing a book from editing a book, do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 21:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 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 07:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions of his reporting in articles about other subjects are not enough to establish notability. --RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 6 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) 03:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wynn[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only for being a non-winning contestant on a reality show. This is not a claim of notability that clinches a Wikipedia article -- a person who didn't win a reality show can still clear the bar if they go on to accomplish something else that clears a notability standard (i.e. some people who didn't win an Idol series have still gone on to become pop stars or musical theatre performers who passed other WP:NMUSIC criteria) -- but the winner of the reality show is the only person who gets to claim notability because of the reality show itself. And the small amount of media coverage shown here just makes him a WP:BLP1E, because there's not nearly enough of it being shown to demonstrate that he would warrant special treatment over and above all the other non-winning reality show contestants in the history of reality shows. Bearcat (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No plausible case for notability I can see, and it's so thin on details it can't even decide on a birth year. --Calton | Talk 05:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, useless tabloid articles! THAT certainly will change my mind.

No, wait, I meant the opposite. I confirm my previous decision. --Calton | Talk 16:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a BLP1E: There is previous press coverage of his robot construction in connection with his winning first prize for costuming at a local SF convention. Between the two, I was able to find and add many press references, even though the local news site's coverage of the convention robot was irrecoverable; note that the video reference I added concerns the convention robot. There's also a dash of post-BGT coverage that I cited: he was commissioned to make a robot suit for a new TV series. Also, a search will reveal several tabloid articles: Daily Mail, Sun, etc., and these include coverage of the convention robot. I did not use those per BLP, but their existence strengthens the case for notability, especially since they are not all regarding his BGT appearance. That we don't have an exact birth year is neither here nor there: people of all levels of notability don't have published birth years, just ages on a specific date like this person, or sometimes even less. (I did a lot of work on this article and would have expected to be notified when it was nominated for deletion.) Yngvadottir (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Press coverage suggested by Yngvadottir is not substantial enough. A local prize in a contest and a prop for a film is still not enough to justify an already unnotable WP:BLP1E article. –eggofreason^talk 14:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know how this can be seen as a BLP1E when he received coverage for another event a good half-year before the reality show, or how the press coverage can be called insubstantial. For the record, in addition to the coverage of his participation in Britain's Got Talent, there are also "Fans at odds with judges' choices for Britain's Got Talent semi-finals" (The Irish News), " Britain's Got Talent viewers OUTRAGED as robot sails through to semi-finals: 'NOT funny!'" (Daily Express), and further coverage of him as one of the candidates such as "A wynning act? Who is Jay Wynn? Britain’s Got Talent 2017 semi-finalist and singer who divided judges with his singing robot routine" (The Sun). On the previous year's giant robot suit, tehre is also "The 'apocalyptic exosuit': Comic fan builds gigantic Halloween costume - that takes 20 MINUTES to put on" (Daily Mail) and , "The best Halloween costume ever is 10ft tall ROBOT made from recycled materials and it's got built-in stilts", (Daily Mirror). All of these save possibly The Irish News are tabloids (and the Sun is truly routine), so it would be inappropriate to reference them in the article, but they add to the weight of coverage as well as supporting my pointing out that he had already received press coverage before BGT. (Plus two of the BGT articles are special coverage of his selection as a surprise.) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only admire the work done on this article by Yngvadottir, but I'm afraid it still doesn't demonstrate notability. A few local news sources and some mentions of his TV appearance just don't add up to enough. And I disagree about the Express/Mail/Mirror/Sun sources. If they are unacceptable as a source of facts for a biography of a living person then they shouldn't count towards notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Effectively a BLP1E since the coverage is overwhelmingly related to that appearance. If the coverage of his comic book convention cosplay had made him notable before he was on BGT, that would be a different matter, but it clearly did not.

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. Whoever wants to merge may do so per WP:BOLD. Clear consensus not to delete the article. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beachbody[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. One source is an own web-site, two others are the same CNN advertorial and the remaining one clearly a press release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems to be part of a group of related articles aimed at promoting the organization, it's products, and employees. --Ronz (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Meets GNG because the CNBC article is a reliable source and has in-depth coverage (with the Cosmo citation, that makes two). It's not completely advertorial because the text includes criticism. Since the page is so scant, it could be merged to P90X. Citrivescence (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company is best known for P90X which was a workout fad about 10 years back and could be a likely merge target. However, based on this Forbes piece which appeared in print and online from a staff writer and this Los Angeles Times article which isn't flattering, the company meets WP:NCORP. What I would suggest is a merger of the P90X and PiYo pages into the Beachbody page as the others are merely WP:CFORKs of the company's products. It this is kept, ping me and I will be happy to perform the merge. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Citrivescence. However, this is the company and P90X is one of their products, so we should keep this article and redirect P90X to this article, with a subsection.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mentioned in reliable secondary source, and the creator of the notable P90X product. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I would recommend that the P90X product page is merged/redirected to here. I've also added in a "criticisms" section as most articles in secondary sources comment critically on the company and the Team Beachbody pyramid selling. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph "Papo" Besson[edit]

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

Music executive who fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks significant independent coverage about him, just passing mentions. Can't inherit notability from others he might have worked with.Sandals1 (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:56, 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) 21:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelene P. Grassli[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Searches for independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage are only providing one source (here). However, multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Also have not found any evidence that WP:AUTHOR is met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 06:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 19:08, 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) 21:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mick McCleery[edit]

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

minor film maker. Refs are only IMDB. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 03:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. –eggofreason^talk 14:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2010 Wyoming gubernatorial election. WP:NOQUORUM czar 02:18, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Petersen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate. Maybe redirect to 2010 Wyoming gubernatorial election. GPL93 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:35, 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. czar 02:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Foundling[edit]

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

Non-notable film. The director's article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Lyn. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find any substantial or mildly substantial coverage for this. It looks like it released and got some coverage from a couple of horror websites, but not really any that I'd be firmly comfortable using to show notability. I'll refrain from suggesting a redirect as this is something that looks like it would be a relatively common search term as far as films and literature goes. Plus I don't know if the director herself is notable at this point in time. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like to me that clearly fails WP:NFILM, as ReaderofthePack said that only got coverage in few horror websites, but could not find the film on Rotten Tomatoes and, even the director herself was called into question. Sheldybett (talk) 20:28, 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.

[1] Kris Clack NBA media biography

[1]