Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 January	9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samraat Joshua Grewal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The only significant coverage is through one outlet (ABC) and may not be significant coverage - if not, WP:BLP1E applies along with the fact that there are not multiple RS. Other sources are primary, and a candidate is not notable. The Unshackled is a blog, hence not an RS. Christian Youth / CDU are not independent sources. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Unshackled is a registered Australian Company and Minor News Network, with employees. The ABN may be acquired from the Australian Business Register. The ABC article/video is extensive coverage of the subject, with the subject participating and the video acknowledges the subjects position.

If time is given, till the 23 of March 2019, there will be multiple news sources on the subjects candidacy and political position, as well as past major events and rally's(That have not included in the article due to having not secondary sources)

Until then, the ABC source, as The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and the Unshackled, as a registered Australian Company and minor news network should satisfy the requirements of a secondary source as the both have extensive coverage of the subject.

It is advised that they are viewed to see if the meet the requirement before they are contested.

SSaphan (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from talk page. Tagged as a comment, SSaphan will likely want to change that to Keep, (changed by me). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article should be deleted. There are multiple primary sources establishing the public figure, as well as secondary sources from the Australian Broad Casting Association, the Unnshackled as well as the Family World TV (Australia), a branch of Family World TV.

This meets the Wikipedia criteria requirement for secondary sources not related to the subject and establishes the subject notability.

SSaphan (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Unshackled is not a Reliable Source. It self-describes as a "battle front against the progressive left, SJWs and PC culture."^[1], which ties in with their actual website's about page.^[2] This page further describes itself as blogs, effectively forming a POV SPS.I can't see anything relating to Family World TV, neither on a source search, nor indeed in a search for the existence of the outlet. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Unshackled". www.facebook.com.
^ "About Us". The Unshackled.

Apologies it's "Friends World TV" my mistake.

SSaphan (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conceded, FriendsWorld TV is not a registered News Agency. Would it be possible to postpone the deletion of the article until the 23 March 2019, to allow for the release of Secondary Sources, News Articles?

They will be generated after the 29 of January, up until the 23 of March 2019 pertaining to the subject in regards to candidacy, position within the political party, as well as past political acitivity. This will satisfy the secondary source requirement.

SSaphan (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SSaphan: If there's a likelyhood of future notability, we can Draftify the article, to which I would not be opposed. However, based on Electoral district of Mount Druitt, only the victor of the election will be notable - WP:NOTCRYSTAL is why we don't have fully fleged articles in place before notability. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged. The status of his notability isn't that of his candidacy nor noble descent, it is that of his position as the Consul/President of a political youth wing. In the near future, the said news articles to be published will be in relation to his candidacy, however they will all discuss his position within the 'Christian Democratic Party' and his status as Consul/President of the Christian Youth and any significant activities thereof.

They will serve as the secondary sources required to establish his notability based on that fact.

If that satisfy's yourself -That future sources will establish notability based on his position as Consul/President of a political youth movement- then I am in agreement to "Draftify" the article until those sources have been published and added to the article. :)

SSaphan (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOL, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. A position in an organisation does not make a person notable, especially when the organisation itself is not notable per WP:ORG. See Articles for deletion/Christian Youth (Australia) Find bruce (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NPOL; WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook delete. No indication of notability; one random interview with the ABC does not notability make. Extremely unlikely to gain notability from political candidacy, but if he does this can be revisited then. Frickeg (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Fails GNG, POL. At the very best WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps redirect to Christian Democratic Party of Australia if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Youth (Australia) gets redirected to there. Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leading the youth wing of a small political party is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the sources here aren't cutting it at getting him over WP:GNG in lieu. People do not get Wikipedia articles by speaking about themselves or other things in Q&A interviews — they get over our inclusion criteria by being the subject of sources about them, written by other people in the third person. But the media sources here all flunk exactly that test, and the rest of the footnotes are all primary sources that don't support notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It appears it is TOOSOON to even argue about whether a candidate might meet NPOL or GNG. We (Australian editors at least) have tended to consider that candidates fail ONEEVENT unless/until they are elected, even of they are the endorsed candidate of a safe seat. To do otherwise would lead to a flurry of almost a thousand new articles about candidates who will mostly recede back into obscurity following the 2019 Australian federal election. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, that's not just an Australian thing — it's the same rule everywhere, it just doesn't actually always stop unelected candidates from trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame Fighting Irish football series records[edit]

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

A previous AfD in 2016 was determined as no consensus. As argued in three similar, successful AfDs in 2016—Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Hawkeyes football series records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona Wildcats football series records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Longhorns football series records—this list details statistics of minor note. Such as Notre Dame vs Buffalo (whom they've never played), or Notre Dame vs Georgia (as their record being winless against the Bulldogs.) Some sources such as "winsipedia" are unreliable and programs such as Creighton and Notre Dame aren't a specific case compared to Texas, Alabama etc. But these lists have been determined to fail WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fall under the same category and type:

Delete both Notre Dame and Creighton lists per nominator, first AfD nomination for Notre Dame, and related AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Hawkeyes football series records. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is well researched and sourced from multiple distinct sources. Notre Dame is a historically noteworthy independent team. Other related pages (Texas, Alabama, etc.) were not well sourced. Creighton pages should be deleted on those grounds. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There sourcing available for these records is more or less equivalent for all major programs. The fact that the Texas and Alabama articles may not have been properly cited was not and would not be a reason to delete them. The reason to delete them was that the subject was not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. The same is true for Notre Dame. Notre Dame is no more noteworthy than Alabama or Michigan, programs for which congruent lists were deleted. Jweiss11 (talk)

This is simply not true. The sourcing available is NOT equivalent to other major programs. Please look at the sources cited in the article and compare to sources for other teams. The list is notable otherwise there would not be such sources that are various and numerous. It is not like the records of Creighton and UMass. Could arguments be made for that Alabama and Michigan should have similar pages? I think so though there are fewer available sources for those teams despite being major programs. I did not think those articles should be deleted back then either. In any case, sources on Notre Dame tend to discuss their history and their independent scheduling more than other schools. It is a bit unique in that respect. Shatterdaymorn (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These really should be separate nominations because they are separate article types. ~~Keep the ND article~~ clearly sourced, high volume of third party independent articles, passes WP:GNG and it's to the point that it seems disruptive to even nominate an article so well sourced. Delete Creighton list as it shows no sources-- while I'm sure some can be found, we can bring it back if and when it's ready. No prejudice to re-create or merge the Creighton data to another suitable page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is disruptive to try and promote community consensus on these articles established by WP:CFB here, and here? The rationale confirmed by previous AfDs for Texas here and Iowa, Alabama, and Michigan here. Besides isn't that what rivalry articles are for?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also for what it's worth see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tampa Bay Buccaneers Records.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UCO2009bluejay, no, please do so. That's the sort of higher-level consistency we all ought to be promoting. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ You are correct, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" applies here. Policy beats guideline and I stand corrected. What we have here is an article that could be sourced to the nth degree and pass WP:GNG but fails other measures. Thanks for pointing that out!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paulmcdonald: The nomination is not based on WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. As I've outlined below, in response to your raising it, NOTSTATSBOOK is inapplicable to the Notre Dame list. Moreover, its application here sets a dangerous precedent. Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dad gummit… I'm recusing myself completely from this one, I can't even stick to my own choice! But I'll follow...--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Creighton list; that part is easy. May weigh in later on the ND list. Cbl62 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Notre Dame list as well. However, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is NOT a valid basis for deleting in this case. The purpose of NOTSTATSBOOK is to require context for stats and to avoid pure data dumps. It explicitly states: "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." Here, the Notre Dame list is in a table, is very readable, and includes the type of explanatory text and context that NOTSTATBOOK prescribes. Moreover, if NOTSTATSBOOK was a valid basis for deleting statistical listings regardless of notability, it could be used to support deletion of highly notable statistical lists such as: List of college football coaches with 200 wins, List of NCAA football records, List of NCAA Division I FBS running backs with at least 5,000 rushing yards, List of NCAA Division I FBS career rushing yards leaders etc. IMO, the real issue is not whether such lists are precluded under NOTSTATSBOOK. Rather, the real issues here are whether the lists satisfy WP:LISTN and whether we ought to exercise editorial judgment to opt against a stand-alone list/article. In this case, I favor exercising editorial judgment to avoid such lists for two reasons. First, the data at issue is massive (particularly if such lists were to proliferate for dozens of college football programs) and changes with great frequency -- resulting in an enormous and probably unsustainable task in updating such lists on an ongoing basis. Second, the identical data sets are published off Wikipedia by organizations (e.g., SR/College Football here) that are better equipped to perform regular automated updates of the data. Cbl62 (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom and per previous similar AfDs. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Echoing my earlier comment from the first AfD: "For the record, I voted "Keep" on the first of these AfD's, however, the widespread community consensus was crystal clear to delete this entire class of articles, as evidenced in the links above. If we're going to do that, then, IMHO, we should go ahead and do it, and not create some sort of special "Notre Dame exception" to that existing consensus. Basically, we either need to delete this one or un-delete all of the other ones; and, at this point, I don't really care which one we do, just so long as we're consistent about doing it." In addition, I feel it's worth pointing out that there's nothing different between this Notre Dame article and the Michigan, Texas, and Alabama (etc.) ones that already got deleted. In reality, this should have been a bundled nomination of this entire class of articles to start with (I believe the only reason it wasn't was part of some sort of Dirtlawyer "strategy" of nominating articles individually to try to get the most number of articles deleted). Also, it might be worth noting that the first AfD for this had a couple of odd irregularities, as I noted in this comment. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things We Do for Love (TV series)[edit]

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

Another non notable announced and never released TV series that fails both WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. No networks, no notices about the shooting date, nothing to be found in WP:BEFORE. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never came to air at all, and only sourced by the questionable (and flagged for malware) Sitcoms Online. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another WP:NTV situation that should’ve been a speedy delete.Trillfendi (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 03:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable TV show. Vorbee (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to fail obvious GNG and media-specific guidance as not-yet-released (in this case, never-to-be-released) without other sources of notability.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails GNG and never released. Alex-h (talk) 21:13, 13 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. Some sources noted here which have been added to the article which shows there is some degree of coverage of the season but to be frank it's not exactly overwhelming. As noted by one editor below its probably the bare minimum at best. I don't think we are going to get anything else out of this discussion and I don't believe the keep argument is sufficiently strong at this stage. Fenix down (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament[edit]

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

Previous seasons of tournaments at this level have been consistently deleted or redirected at AfD in the past: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The same reasons from those AfD's apply here. Individual seasons of this tournament do not receive sufficient coverage, beyond routine sport reporting, to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep for another WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominee on Sir Sputnik's war against college soccer. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I would like to remind Sputnik that there has never been a true consensus in the past, despite his best efforts, and numerous closures have been overturned due to the lack of consensus. Quidster4040 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there's not a consensus that these strictly need to be deleted. At least it should be redirected to Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. Certainly in its current state, it requires additional citations to demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG. Jay eyem (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as an aside, we really need to have a conversation about whether or not these events (NCAA D1 conference tournaments) are inherently notable or not. I know a conversation was started at some point after the 2017 America East AfD, but there needs to be greater participation. Jay eyem (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic alone meets WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. The tournament offers an automatic berth into the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Tournament, the premier college soccer tournament in the United States. If this was a Division II or Division III tournament, I would say it may not meet GNG since DII and DIII universities receive little coverage compared to DI. Further the tournament features notable athletic programs, especially in the college soccer game, such as UC Santa Barbara and UC Davis. The only concern I have with this article is that there is only one citation, which makes the article look like WP:OR. Cobyan02069 (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSEASONS applies to seasons of individual teams, and so does not apply here. I have to questions on what basis the article meets the general guideline, as the article is based entirely on primary sources, all of which are routine sports coverage (five match reports, and an announcement by the organizer). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament. As noted above, WP:NSEASONS doesn't apply here, there's only one source, the source is primary, and university divisional tournaments typically are too routine to pass WP:GNG since they don't generate much if any substantial press coverage. SportingFlyer talk 04:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSEVENT is the SNG I was looking for, and this doesn't come close to meeting it. Therefore we're reliant on WP:GNG, which we haven't come close to yet either. SportingFlyer talk 09:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT is still not a reason to delete no matter how many times you try to force it through. A DI soccer tournament featuring an automatic bid into the NCAA Tournament is clearly notable, especially when it features prominent programs like UCSB. This is getting old. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the significant secondary coverage, then? SportingFlyer talk 17:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after a quick search of the term in Google News, I was able to draw several dozen sources related to the tournament. I went ahead and added them in the article. I personally find the sources that commentate on UC Riverside's first Big West title notable in that it is not routine coverage in that it is an in-depth analysis from a third party resource about the importance of the program winning the tournament and being able to participate in the NCAA Tournament. Another article emphasizes the program's turnaround over the last two years to make the tournament. So with that in mind, I believe the article meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Twwalter (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that first link for GNG purposes but The Highlander News is the school's student paper, which is similar to a pro team's official website covering the team. The LA Times article which was added is not significant coverage, either. SportingFlyer talk 04:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Typically, I'm inclined to agree with the Highlander News, however, the newspaper is a publication independent of the university, albeit it has university-specific coverage, which signifies a reliable secondary source. If it was the UC Riverside athletic website, the university news services, or the conference reporting the tournament, then I would feel that it would not meet GNG. So that being said, I will respectfully disagree with The Highlander News being not notable. Twwalter (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twwalter: While we disagree on this, I understand and appreciate your response, thanks! SportingFlyer talk 20:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'll kindly ask that SportingFlyer avoids bludgeoning this AfD. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Quidster4040: Why, because I responded to the two commenters beneath me, pointing out there is a serious sourcing issue with these amateur tournaments? Accusing someone of bludgeoning is a very serious matter, and I kindly ask you strike your comment. SportingFlyer talk 04:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do the WP:SATISFY approach to each "keep" comment arguing that it meets WP:GNG, yes, I will say you are bludgeoning, so no I will not strike my comment to make you feel better. Furthermore, if you're going to complain about these tournament articles existence because they're an amateur collegiate tournament, I would suspect then that you will also like stuff such as the 2018 Big West Conference Men's Basketball Tournament, 2018 Pac-12 Football Championship Game, the 2018 Atlantic Hockey Tournament, and the 2018 Big South Conference Baseball Tournament deleted, too. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been only two keep votes after mine. One of them didn't make a WP:GNG argument but rather a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The other comment added sources to the article, but two of the three sources don't qualify for WP:GNG. None of these arguments were frivolous. Finally, I'm saying this article should be deleted because it doesn't pass WP:GNG, not because it's an amateur tournament. Not every university soccer tournament receives enough secondary coverage for its own article, and no one has yet shown this one does. SportingFlyer talk 05:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems, to me, to meet the bare minimum.Trillfendi (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per previous consensus. Does not met GNG. Giant Snowman 08:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's safe that there is a consensus that the article should be kept, particularly per the reasons provided by @Twwalter: and @Smartyllama:. Specifically Twwalter's comments that the sources used to meet WP:GNG are independent news sources not part of the schools nor conference, and that there are articles that offer in-depth reporting. Like what Quidster is saying earlier, we shouldn't do a purity test on how in-depth the coverage is, but based on the links Twwalter provided, I think it shows there is evidence to show the importance of the tournament in general, to the NCAA Tournament, and to the university's soccer program. I get where @Quidster4040: is coming from since early on SportingFlyer replied to several comments, but I don't believe @SportingFlyer: was bludgeoning the thread, or at least, attempting to. Sporting's comments and concerns are fair, but I think Twwalter presents a stronger case, in my opinion. That said, I move for a non-admin closure to keep the article. Cobyan02069 (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FC Cupelaoo Gabu[edit]

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

Article about non-notable amateur football club. The only online reliable source (English- or Portuguese-language) covering the club is RSSSF which indicates the club was eligible to participate in the first round of the 2003 national cup, but did not show for its match and was disqualified. There is nothing to indicate the article satisfies any of our notability guidelines. Previously nominated in a bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis Jogurney (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trust RSSSF, but otherwise can't WP:V this. SportingFlyer talk 00:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in the absence of anyone coming forward with any foreign-language sources, seems to be an obvious delete.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:50, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermarket chains in Bangladesh[edit]

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

This was recently a redirect after I nominated its redirect for deletion, and now I'm nominating the entire article. Unremarkable list of links, absolutely nothing notable. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTYELLOW Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of those stores even have articles, amongst other things.Trillfendi (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 19:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:LISTCRUFT. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 09:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTYELLOW. Sdmarathe (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the interest of WP:ASB; now all of the listed chains have WP articles (so this usefully organizes WP content per WP:CLN), there are good references, has potential for expansion as more articles are written. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Runcie C. W. Chidebe[edit]

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

Article is in poor state, reads like it was written by a COI editor to promote the subject. References seem like PR releases rather than independent coverage. The main claim of significance is on the subject owning an organization that creates awareness on cancer, but I can't seem to see how this organization is "uniquely special" from the hundreds of cancer awareness campaigns all over the world. A Google search returned several passing mentions, but nothing "striking" in my interpretation of Wikipedia notability for persons, infact the best coverage were for the foundation, not for the individual. Considering the issues with the article, I suggest it needs a fresh start, not even for the individual but the foundation he founded. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week delete I've been real skeptical about this page, which explains some of the tags I added long way back. The foundation might be notable - I don't know, but I'm really uncomfortable with the coverage of the subject which are not really independent in such that notability was not fully established. I'd give a pass for COI as another editor has been working towards cleaning that aspect. With all this in mind, I think the article should be deleted except notable independent coverage are added, which I have not seen enough of. Mahveotm (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CF Utelon[edit]

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

Article about non-notable amateur football club. Two sources (Panapress & RSSSF) verify that the club participated Guinea-Bissau's second division once before (in 2003), but nothing verifies that it participated in a national cup competition or otherwise would meet our notability guidelines. Online Portuguese-language sources covering this club are nonexistent. Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utelon.Jogurney (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't WP:V this article. Generally RSSSF is a reliable source, but they only have them mentioned once in a list of fixtures for the second division and don't even show them playing a game. SportingFlyer talk 04:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable - there aren't any references in the article WP:SOURCE --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:47, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people[edit]

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

Prod contested as "a valid navigational aid", but I don't see how anyone would use this to navigate. This is an indiscriminate list with a mish-mash of articles that don't have any particular relationship to each other besides relating to people. List of Disney Legends, List of celebrities on The Simpsons, List of people who have declined a British honour, List of kidney stone formers, and other assorted pages are here, while excluding many related topics, as this page has no criteria for inclusion. While I understand that material can and often should be listed in both a list and a category, I see no benefit to this article over Category:Lists of people for either reference or organization. It seems of the thousands of pages in that category and its many subcategories, a few score were randomly drawn out of a hat to put here (with an emphasis on diseases). As such I don't see a compelling reason to keep this. Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said when I contested WP:PROD deletion, this is a strange deletion proposal. This is a central part one of Wikipedia's navigational systems, and the nominator only gives reasons why it should be improved, not why it should be deleted. The criterion for inclusion is blindingly obvious: that the entry should be a list of people in Wikipedia. If the list is too long then this can be a list of lists of people. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thinking about it, this article should be called List of lists of people and, if it ever gets too long, should become List of lists of lists of people. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- List of lists of people would not be an improvement to this article, it would basically be deleting this article and starting over. Only a fraction of pages on this article are "Lists of people..." rather than "List of X people"s, and the organization is lacking. Category:Lists of people is for navigation, but copying that into a list form would hardly improve anything. However if that is desired for a hierarchy of some sort, delete this article and create that one instead. Putting every "List of X people" here would be neither manageable nor a useful topic, which is why there are dozens of categories and subcategories for that. Reywas92^Talk 21:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I see this list offers nothing of value to Wikipedia in its absolute randomness. If it becomes an acutal, more specific list then I could see keeping it.Trillfendi (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Un-encyclopedic and the subject is far too broad. The problem is that there are very specific entries such as List of brain tumor patients and List of nonviolence scholars and leaders, but more generic ones, such as Lists of people by disease or Lists of leaders, don't exist and aren't going to be made anytime soon. Until those more basic lists are done it is impractical to improve the "Lists of people" article in any meaningful way. Esiymbro (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.CircleGirl (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. In its current form there is no encyclopedic value and no navigational utility. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, this list does violate WP:NOTDIR.It says specifically Wikipedia is not a list of loosely associated topics such as people. It is also not usable. It is both too large and too small - too large because it's all encompassing, it includes all people including fictional characters. Too small because the possibilities are endless. Aurornisxui (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no good purpose Spiderone 19:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR.--Staberinde (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too broad and less than no improvement over Category:Lists of people (unless it includes Soylent Green in some way, in which case, still delete). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep we must have something at this title, even if just a redirect. While there are certainly content issues, I think a curated list of some sort is better than a redirect to the category. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 12 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) 20:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famous (TV series)[edit]

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

Cancelled before release TV show that simply fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage on reliable secondary sources that is not routine. It was WP:TOOSOON to even create the article without cast and WP:NFF could be applied. All that can be found in or outside the article in terms of sources are all WP:ROUTINE (picked up, cancelled, not moving forward, ordered to series with all variations of that etc.) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the article itself says, the series was not even aired. Vorbee (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only a failure to air, but just in development in general judging by the two week 'it's ordered' and 'never mind!' period. Not even notable in the television show development sense at all. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article shouldn’t have even been created due to WP:NTV! Trillfendi (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. --PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 11:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as appears to fail the general motability guideline. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – clearly fails WP:TVSHOW as a series that was never ordered to series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pony Trouble[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to have had a major release, won any awards, or triggered secondary coverage. Delete as failing GNG.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not any reliable sources. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example no critic reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and only one external review at IMDb which goes to a wrong page, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 12 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Henry Petersen[edit]

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

A non-notable hymnwriter that continues to fail WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to say “delete per nom”, but that’s the case here. Notability couldn’t be found.Trillfendi (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per nom. --Lockley (talk) 06:40, 9 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. Consensus is that the sources that exist do not meet our requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

José A. Teixeira[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, short passing mentions and quotations from the subject, which do not establish notability. The primary sources in the article and found in searches also do not establish notability. Below is an analysis of sources in the article; source searches are not providing anything better:

References

Ref 1 – Primary source published by the LDS church
Refs 2–7 – Primary source published by Church News, which is owned by the LDS church
Ref 8 – Has two name checks for the subject. Not significant coverage.
Listed source 1 – Primary source published by Liahona, which is owned by the LDS church
Listed source 2 – Primary source, Church News, owned by the LDS church

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are internal to the church, not substantive coverage from third-party sources, so notability is not established. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a renomination less than 3 months after the last one closed. He has coverage fcrom countries other than where he is a native of, this is over nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and passing mentions do not confer notability. WP:BEFORE searches have provided no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Other than a single minimal mention used to verify a date (Deseret News), sources currently in article are not independent under WP:IIS (Church News, Liahona, lds.org) and do not count toward establishing notability. Search does not find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources, only the usual passing mentions in event announcements and brief quotes reprinted from church sources. Some LDS leaders are notable, but this one does not pass WP:GNG. Open to reconsideration if significant coverage in independent sources emerges. Bakazaka (talk) 02:50, 14 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. Tone 20:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Edmunds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non-notable subject that continues to fail WP:BASIC. Arguments for article retention in the first AfD discussion were hunch- and opinion-based, whereby some users made up their own notability criteria, rather than basing notability upon Wikipedia's guidelines. The second AfD discussion received minimal input. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive sources independent of the subject and his church. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in the first nomination, I fail to see notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:22, 11 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 but bonus points awarded for possibly getting some WP editors fired/divorced when they searched for sources without knowing what the name meant. RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Hentai[edit]

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Fails WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, I'm shocked that the "Super Hentai" name isn't already taken by something else. Second, this one fails GNG. It's been awhile since I saw so many redlinks.LM2000 (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I just had to google what that meant, never knew Japanimation was actually Hentai. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galatz, sorry you had to go down that rabbit-hole! Though, if I remember correctly, there is a difference between Japanimation/Anime and Hentai. Bkissin (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Um, WP:BEFORE is going to be a bit difficult to do on this one. Don't want wife/colleagues/kids peaking over my shoulder and seeing my search results . . . .FOARP (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with Galatz's assessment that this fails GNG, since no sources are cited here at all. I thought we had notability guidelines for professional wrestlers similar to WP:MMANOT, but I always have trouble finding them. Bkissin (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bkissin: We had worked on them at one point but never finalized it, currently professional wrestling falls to WP:ENT per WP:NSPORT. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m pretty sure no sources can be possibly found buried under all that pornography....Trillfendi (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, second that Delete - my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. --Darth Mike^(talk) 18:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy enough to restrict Google search results using quotes (e.g. "Super Hentai" "wrestling") but basically it's passing mentions in coverage of events or in reference books (e.g. [1] [2]). Under the Japanese name (スーパー・ヘンタイ) he's only covered in jawiki in other wrestler's articles, since he trained some of them, apparently. Bakazaka (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have mentioned, this one is tricky to search for, but I am not seeing reliable source coverage significant to meet WP:ENT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable KylieTastic (talk) 22:34, 9 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. Tone 20:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newport 1665[edit]

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

A specific cheese made by a single artisanal cheesemaker. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. A standard WP:BEFORE search yielded several places selling the cheese, and a small amount of local and routine coverage. The current article has only one reference, which is a broken link to what appears to have been a primary source. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability from substantive outside sources not established. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable as not been substantiated by independent sources. Lorstaking (talk) 05:52, 12 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. Tone 20:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrekin White[edit]

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

A specific cheese made by a single artisanal cheesemaker. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. A standard WP:BEFORE search yielded several places selling the cheese, and a small amount of local and routine coverage. The current article has no references. Lowercaserho (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, notability from substantive outside sources not established. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The article in its current state reads somewhat like a promotion. Regardless, this product of cheese obviously fails GNG, as I could only find local reports on it—nothing substantial however.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable as not been substantiated by independent sources. Lorstaking (talk) 05:52, 12 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) 18:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Dee Collins[edit]

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

Local coverage, which is to be expected, but fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Midwest City OK is not large or important enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors just for existing, but the article is not well sourced enough to make him a special case among a not inherently notable class of topic. A couple of local media hits is not enough in and of itself to get a smalltown mayor over WP:GNG, because every mayor of everywhere can always show a couple of local media hits — in a town or city this size, the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to show a volume, depth and/or geographic range of coverage that goes beyond the norm. And his predecessor has an article for being a state senator, not for being mayor per se, so the fact that he has an article does not reify into an inclusion freebie for this one either. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors are not automatically notable, I don't see substantive outside sourcing about him. Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Midland City had a population of about 54,000 during the 2010 census, which is on the small side for a presumption of notability for its mayors. While the mayor of Midland is independently elected, the subject's page shows he was selected by the council to serve the remainder of his predecessor's term. While there is some interest in the recall effort, the sourcing is primarily in local papers. --Enos733 (talk) 17:44, 9 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. Tone 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qumra Capital[edit]

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines. References given are routine press releases and not WP:significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Balkywrest (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Searches mostly show press releases. Excelse (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added more independent citations to meet notability guidelines, including Fortune.com and major tech magazine TechCrunch. Jakegreenblatt (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; sourcing is in passing, routine notices, and / or WP:SPIP. TechCrunch is not a "major tech magazine". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Please explain why major Israeli business publications (TheMarker, Globes and Calcalist) are NOT considered significant sources. Jakegreenblatt (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to reply to other editors' comments, but please stick to no more than one bolded keep/delete/etc. per discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spectra Records[edit]

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

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

Unsourced paid advert that has been unremedied for way too long. Cabayi (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query Where is the evidence that this article was edited in return for undisclosed payments? --Pontificalibus 11:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to be the same company as the later Spectra Music Group, an article equally lacking in independent 3rd party sources. Possibly the AfD should be extended to consider both articles? AllyD (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch AllyD, the edit history of Spectra Music Group makes the paid connection even clearer for Pontificalibus. Added. Cabayi (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the editors who have contributed since 2009 are you accusing? Rathfelder (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smg29423 (talk · contribs), Spectra29423 (talk · contribs), and Spectra29485 (talk · contribs) who was explicitly blocked as a paid editor. Cabayi (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really dislike these. Not the nominator's fault! The article lists a number of notable artists in the article, indicating it is one of the "more important independent labels" through WP:NMUSIC #5. This can't be taken at face value, and particularly when paid/promotional editing is suspected. So, it appears two notable artists have releases on Spectrum, Lou Gramm and Magni Ásgeirsson. When in Rome (band) is listed, but this seems to be a re-incarnation of the band, not the original, kinda like the multiple versions of the Platters that toured the oldies circuit well after their charting years. An unsupported statement says Cutting Crew signed with the label, but no releases are mentioned. Paul Young, and Orleans (band) list Spectra as one of their record labels in the infobox, but otherwise ties to the label are unsupported. Glenn Jones and Fredro Starr don't mention the label at all. My initial opinion is that there is a small-to-middling chance this is a notable label, but the accursed promotional editing makes it difficult to sort out. Frankly it would be little loss if the article were TNT'd, and unsourced statements/mentions regarding the label were removed from articles linking to the article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The articles have been developed by accounts associated with the subject (see this comment) without demonstration of the claims to importance in the company's field which are made in the latter article. Notability is not inherited from the artists whose music has been released, though reliable 3rd party source which discussed and attributed a more significant formative role to the company, if such could be found, might contribute to WP:CORPDEPTH. However, searches are finding only announcements of album releases, which are routine coverage. Clearly a company going about its business, but I don't see the WP:NCORP requirements being met. AllyD (talk) 14:15, 10 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 Charles Newton (inventor). Sandstein 23:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.35 Newton[edit]

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

Unsourced gun stub, does not meet WP:GNG. Perfect candidate for a list though. » Shadowowl | talk 10:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using the Google Books link above yielded quite a lot of hits in what appear to be reliable secondary sources - can you explain why we would delete rather than improve the article?GirthSummit _(blether) 12:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge with Charles Newton (inventor) - This is currently a stub and needs major WP:CLEANUP but a brief search does show indication of notability. I think it needs to be kept, but some major work dedicated to it. Skirts89 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to the Charles Newton (inventor) page...Nobody, has made .35 Newton ammo, much less rifles since before WWII. What books and magazines that mention this cartridge are dated, and were all written in the 1920s and 1930s. This may have been a notable cartridge a hundred years ago, but not today. Today, it's just firearms trivia.--RAF910 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is true, but this is a historical cartridge. Age shouldn't have anything to do with notability. Nobody uses swords today but they're still notable. Skirts89 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swords as a group are notable. And, some swords, such as Katanas and Claymores are very notable. However, that does not mean that every sword ever made must have its own Wiki page. The .35 Newton is nothing more than firearms trivia and it does not merit its own page.--RAF910 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as a whole. However I've done a bit more research and the .35 Newton is actually still produced (by Jamison and RCC Brass, at the least). The inventor, Charles Newton, was a fairly prolific firearms and cartridge designer as well so that might deserve a link or at least merge. Skirts89 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what, a couple of wildcat companies make special order .35 Newton brass for re-loaders. Are you suggesting that every cartridge ever made deserves a Wiki page? If you want to merge or redirect this page to the Charles Newton (inventor) page, that would be appropriate.--RAF910 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps a merge or redirect would be good! Let's get some consensus on that. A cartridge is not a subject worth getting worked up about. Skirts89 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Skirts89/RAF910. Consensus based on reasoned discussion - it's a beautiful thing. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per reasonable discussion above. --Lockley (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Charles Newton (inventor) per above. Sdmarathe (talk) 23:31, 11 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. Seems to meet WP:GNG based on the sources discovered. RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endia Beal[edit]

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

I don't think she is yet notable. Though her work has appeared in exhibits, there is no evidence any of it is in the permanent collection of a major museum, nor that it has received substantial criticism. The refeces present in the article are essentially press releases. DGG ( talk ) 09:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof yet. Not enough for WP:Artist. It is unfortunate that the BLP has the bland promotional tone of a PR release but even a rewrite in conformity with Wikiepdia standards would not save it. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I think she meets WP:GNG, though perhaps not yet WP:ARTIST. The Financial Times has a review [3] of a book in which she is featured, called Firecrackers: Female Photographers Now (Google Books has no preview, unfortunately). As well as the BJP article cited already, there are other articles, eg Huffington Post [4], the Winston-Salem Monthly [5], the Greensboro News & Record [6], and a year ago Time included her in an article on '12 African American Photographers You Should Follow Right Now' [7]. Just over a year ago, the Boston Globe review of a group exhibition, Race, Love and Labor, said Beal's was the most powerful work in the exhibition [8]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pinging DGG to see the sources posted by RebeccaGreen, who shows a clear pass of WP:GNG as usual. It seems the coverage is even WP:SUSTAINED, ranging from 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018). Analyzing them...I was not able to check out the newspaper source or the book review which is behind a paywall. Time (magazine) one is a passing mention and a citation at that (but the fact she was included by them is a good sign). But HuffPost, Winston-Salem Journal and News & Record coverage per Rebecca and British Journal of Photography, Vice (magazine) ones in the article is all more than a mere mention which fits the "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Xxanthippe, A person may not pass WP:PROF nor WP:ARTIST, but passing WP:GNG also should be considered as is the case here. Promotional tone issues is not what AfD is about per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of in-depth coverage means she meets GNG easily. WP:ARTIST is a less certain bet, but that's sometimes a tricky criteria to use since if a person meets GNG but not the much tighter ARTIST standard, their article is still be kept per our rules. In some ways the WP:ARTIST standard is irrelevant as we regularly include artists whose work does not meet it, but instead meets the lower GNG standard.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST #3 and 4a (her work is the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and has "won significant critical attention"), which are basically WP:GNG in disguise. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, #3's requirement for multiple articles is not talking about the artist in general, but rather about a single work or body of work: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"... and that work/body of work has generated multiple independent articles.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. The Huffington Post is unreliable for the purposes of BLP, as not all of it has editorial control. Local newspapers are not either, because they will normally cover anything about local residents, and are therefore indiscriminate. Inclusions with a large number of other people is often not substantial coverage--the material needs to be actually examined.

Additionally, the only rational way of interpreting the special notability guideline for artists is as a limitation on the GNG. Any artist whose work is in a major collection will in practice always have the necessary sources, and any artist whose work is subject to significant critical discussion inherently by definition has the sources. ( I'm aware this is a disputed interpretation. To clarify it, If this is kept, I would have to appeal it to deletion review, and if it kept there, I would need to start another RfC on the meaning of NCREATIVE. I shall not do so here, because she is possibly reasonably close to notability, but wait for an example where using GNG gives a really absurd result.) DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I agree with DGG that HuffPo has been doing a lot of "user submitted" content lately entirely devoid of editorial overview, although I don't see that to be the case here. Many of the sources, as has already been stated, are much too local/niche and lack the vast audience required by the GNG. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see the list below, which includes BBC, Guardian, Time, Vice and the British Journal of Photography.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. In addition to the sources presented herein, there's also more listed below, as per my WP:BEFORE searches. While some of the sources below have some interview content, they also have a fair amount of independent analysis to meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

British Journal of Photography
Slate
Winston-Salem Journal
Slate

Comment Leaving aside HuffPost, a Gnews search returns:

Time Magazine: "12 African American Photographers You Should Follow Right Now"
Greensboro News (GoTriad.com): "Endia Beal makes art to inspire and give voice to the voiceless"
British Journal of Photography: "Ednia Beal's Am I what you are looking for?"
BBC News: "Chicago: Three artists challenge African-American Stereotypes"
Artnet News: "7 Breakthrough Artists to Discover at the 2018 AIPAD Photography Show"
CBS Chicago: "How Do You See Me’ Wants People To Ask Questions About Stereotypes"
Vice: "Am I what you are looking for?"
New York Times (blog):"Young, Black, Female and Envisioning Corporate Life"
Slate:"White women, black hairstyles"
The Guardian:"The Newest Americans: portraits from the 'most diverse' US university"

The above sourcing is independent, in depth in several cases, and in very reliable publications.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:BASIC based on the sources provided above. Also, perhaps opinion and user generated pieces are not reliable, but this one [9] was written by Claire Fallon, a "Books and Culture Writer" at Huffpost (appears to be an employee). Thsmi002 (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think she's been shown to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing I'm prepared to withdraw the AfD, on the basis of the BBC account above (but I do notice that most of the articles are very similar, suggesting they are based upon the same PR. But this is a field where one cannot completely eliminate PR-stimulated sources, if the PR agent does a very good job of getting the coverage). DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)`[reply]
keep per RebeccaGreen's sources as ThatMontrealIP has analyzed. Also, as I was reading the BJP article I realized I knew the work already -- I share this as a way of anecdotally showing notability. --Theredproject (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources North America1000 found prove notability. Dream Focus 17:08, 12 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) 11:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of the 20th century[edit]

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

Subjective, non-encyclopedic and redundant • REDGOLPE (TALK) 09:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths of the 21st century. WWGB (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the criterion is too nebulous and subjective: Who gets to decide what constitutes a "major event"? For example, Charles Ponzi's death hardly seems to qualify IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of any criteria for inclusion, no rationale for selection of the listed dead. WWGB (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real inclusion criteria. Redundant to Lists of deaths by year. Ajf773 (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN.
Delete: notability of deaths per century is extremely subjective, if we're going to catalogue them we need to do it in a neutral way, which we coincidentally do, at Category:20th-century deaths. SITH (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and redundant. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was created as a spin-off from Timeline of the 20th century. Subjective is accurate. Entirely unnecessary and redundant to the per-year lists of deaths. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:48, 12 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) 11:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of the 21st century[edit]

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

Subjective, non encyclopedic and redundant • REDGOLPE (TALK) 09:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths of the 20th century. WWGB (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning for the 20th century list. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of any criteria for inclusion, no rationale for selection of the listed dead. WWGB (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real inclusion criteria. Redundant to Lists of deaths by year. Ajf773 (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN.
Delete — Redundant reimagining of our deaths by year articles.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Department of Redundancy, Department.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was created as a spin-off from Timeline of the 21st century. Subjective is accurate. Entirely unnecessary and redundant to the per-year lists of deaths. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 21st century. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 09:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad' Tiregar[edit]

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:NACTOR. Nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. Mohammad Tiregar is creation protected so the SPA created this article with adding an apostrophe to the title. Hitro talk 08:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wait : The people who created this article did not already have the right information. I did research. This is a famous Iranian actress recently.
Definitely an important person ، We created the article. Please help with the contents of this article to complete.Reapok (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt A complete waste of community time. Bakazaka (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crane Co.[edit]

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

This article on a company is devoid of WP:INDEPENDENT sources. A BEFORE finds only the most WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even a cursory google search reveals some mention in independent sources eg [10] [11][12][13]. Should not be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these is a press release, the second is a ticker symbol listing, the third is in Seeking Alpha (not RS), and the fourth is a WP:ROUTINE M&A report. Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep per Tom (LT). --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If the best possible search revealed a press release, a crowdsourced site, and a news report, one would generally assume it to be non-notable, but I'm on the fence here. Rather than merely listing a ticker symbol, the Reuters page is an independent, expert-written document of significant length (4789 characters by my count), far more than we demand on the minimum side of significant coverage. The only problem is that it's alone; lacking any other significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, deletion has to be the choice, but if a comparable source could be found, it would definitely need to be restored. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree Reuters is a reliable source, their reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile section includes a company summary for all 5,200 NASDAQ / NYSE traded companies and, per WP:LISTED, we don't consider trading on a major exchange evidence of WP:N. I agree the information in it is suitable for referencing an article, but I don't think it should be used to demonstrate notability since the only criteria for having a profile on it is a ticker symbol registered with the NYSE or NASDAQ. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the point is that it's a reliable secondary source that provides extensive coverage. Who cares why they provide it? Trading on a major exchange isn't evidence of notability (otherwise I'd be arguing for a keep), but if some company decides to employ experts to produce reliable-source coverage on all of them, we can't just ignore the experts' writeups and demand just as many solid sources as we would if the experts hadn't written anything. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's definitely a reliable secondary source for facts. I only disagree it's evidence of notability. Every NASDAQ/NYSE traded company receives a similar profile as part of the investor intelligence side (Customer Markets) of the Thomson Reuters business (this [Customer Markets Division] is the same operating unit of Thomson Reuters that hosts BusinessWire / PRNewswire press releases on reuters.com and is separate from the newsgathering / reporting unit [Reuters Division]). The investor profiles are largely adopted / paraphrased from the respective companies Form 10-Ks; this is significantly different from a journalistic Reuters story. Ergo, it strikes me as being closer to a Business Journals article and treatable in the same way we approach those (as a source but not evidence of notability). But we may have to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep I've just added an important SCOTUS case that Crane involved in. While searching, I've also found that the firm seems to have had a number of other lawsuits, including a California Supreme Court case from 2012 called O'Neil v. Crane Co,[14] which involved the US Navy. I am certain that there is quite a lot of relevant material regarding this company, though its not as easy to find as for a retailer or celebrity. Markvs88 (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Withdraw as nom. Based on being the subject of a SCOTUS case, I believe this meets notability. Thanks to Markvs88 for salvaging. Chetsford (talk) 07:17, 9 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. WP:SNOW. No prejudice against recreating another version of the article with sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misha Kokaia[edit]

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

Delete, absolutely NO sources on this article can be found, plus person is not notable, and article is merely a stub. This is NOT Wikipedia worthy at all. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Um, are you voting for your own proposal? Trillfendi (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: I AM voting to have this article deleted, and yes I posted this deletion tag, is that what you meant? Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t do both. You propose deletion while others vote.Trillfendi (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: You can't? I know people who have put deletion tags on articles, then nominated them for deletion, this is news to me, where did you get this information from? Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since an nomination is automatically considered a !vote for deletion, people don't generally write it as a bold !vote as you have done, but of course one can (and would have to) support deletion when nominating for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: Thank you for clarifying this for me, as you would know this being a Wikipedia administrator, and an authority on this matter and thanks for your quick response as well! Davidgoodheart (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All things considered it’s obviously a delete. No question about that.Trillfendi (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: No kidding! All that I meant was what wrong with leaving a sentence like everyone else does, perhaps I didn't word that right. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conventionally, you might start the nominating sentence with "Absolutely no sources" and so on. There is no need for the bullet or bolded vote. Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N, WP:BLP. I searched using both the English-language name and with the Georgian name (though I do not know the language) and found nothing except mirrors of the WP article. Surely if this person was a notable politician there would be coverage of his disappearance. I could not find an article in the Georgian edition of WP. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprised at the total absence of sources for this one given the subject matter. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undersourced and the person fails notability anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable--Binod Basnet (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. The article calls him a politician, but completely fails to contain any content whatsoever about any political roles he might have held, so it's impossible to measure against WP:NPOL at all — so we can only judge this on the disappearance claims themselves, and there's no evidence turning up that he clears WP:GNG for that either. To be fair, if he disappeared in 1993, then potential sources might just not Google well, so I'd be willing to reconsider this if somebody with access to archived Georgian media coverage can improve the article with actual sources — but the lack of an article on the Georgian Wikipedia is not promising. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymonde Allain[edit]

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

I don’t see nor could I find anything that meets GNG or NBIO. No significant coverage, reliable sources, etc. Trillfendi (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first hit of a Google Books search (which should be part of any WP:BEFORE) finds an academic source with multiple pages discussing Allain, including the extensive and unusual press coverage she received at the time, with additional citations to sources for followup (The Force of Beauty: Transforming French Ideas of Femininity in the Third Republic [15]). Bakazaka (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I included Google Books in my Before because of her time period but saw nothing beyond mere mention.Trillfendi (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to her almost certainly passing WP:GNG based on contemporary coverage of her activities, if any of those passing mentions you saw verify that she "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", for example the three notable films listed in the article, or the additional lead role she played in the film described in the source that is already in the article, then she also passes WP:NACTOR#1. (Spoiler alert: she does). Bakazaka (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well we must have different views on significant roles.Trillfendi (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was plenty of significant coverage at the time of the beauty pageants (even in Australia!), as shown by a search of Newspapers.com (and that doesn't include French papers, which no doubt covered her too). The newspaper articles (eg [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], include more information than is in the article, so it could certainly be expanded. There was more coverage when she had finished drama school and got roles in stage plays and films. She was also included in a 1998 book called Beauty queens : a playful history (I found a review, here [24] which talks about Allain - on Google books there is no preview, though). Definitely meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even a quick scan of search engine results show up a number of sources on the subject. There is certainly a lot more that can be expanded on this topic Playlet (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current content and the sources found by RebeccaGreen certainly indicate more evidence of encyclopedic nature of the subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 23:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lsh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to meet general notability guideline, and development seems to have ended years ago, so no prospect of "becoming" notable. Closeapple (talk) 22:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per own nomination: If I remember, lsh was mildly popular for a very brief period as a testing implementation for the then-shiny-and-new version 2 of the SSH protocol, but was quickly overtaken by other SSH programs instead. This article was kept by an AfD in 2010, but the reason isn't really clear from the AfD and the arguments made in 2010 don't seem to match current standards for significant coverage (i.e. more than a passing mention in independent third-party sources). If there is significant coverage somewhere else now, speak now, because the books currently listed in the article don't get it done:
- Lasser (2000), ISBN 9780789723765, p. 104: only mention is "One project is producing a tool, lsh, which interoperates with version 2 of SSH."
- Smith (2005), ISBN 9780596007584, p. 227: only mention is "lsh: For GPL fans, lsh is an SSH implementation under that license. You can learn more at" (URL given)
- Yaghmour (2003), ISBN 9780596002220, p. 300: I didn't find an image of this book page to verify. (I didn't look very hard though.)
--Closeapple (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2018 (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 15:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is not fleeting. That the project is no longer worked on does not mean it has lost its notability any more than OpenOffice.org has lost its notability just because it has transferred the project to a different owner and is no longer being worked on. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above—no significant coverage has been identified. Changing vote to no opinion per new sources located. However, I note that self-published websites and unpublished papers are not considered RS and cannot be used to determine notability. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It's old, but has coverage. [25] [26][27][28]-- dsprc ^[talk] 23:07, 10 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 Wilfrid Laurier University. Minimal discussion here, but to the extent that there's a consensus here at all, it is a selective/partial merge into Wilfrid Laurier University. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lazaridis School of Business and Economics[edit]

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

A university's business school. I cut down on some of the advertising-type content. Coverage is primary or local. University subdivisions are rarely notable, and this one seems not to be an exception. A partial merger to Wilfrid Laurier University or Mike Lazaridis seems possible. Sandstein 09:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge Some university subdivisions are always notable, such as law or medical schiools. Business schools sometimes are--it depends on the prominence of the parent school and of the business school. In this case, there's not enough evidence, and this is basically advertising, but some part of it should be in the main article.. DGG ( talk ) 03:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Outreach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional article sourced solely in primary sources and original research. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources specific to this org are pariticuarly difficult to find because of the generic title. While individual campus ministries may meet WP:ORG, there is no indication that this loosely organized umbrella organization does.

Only improvements since the last AFD are information from a blog MadeYourReadThis (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Lack of substantive outside sources to establish notability - all links on page are from themselves. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newscycle Solutions[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage and none are in the article. SL93 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are some press releases and general announcement stuff, but nothing that establishes WP:CORPDEPTH. Possibility to redirect to Vista Equity Partners. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, mainly PRIMARY sources, announcements, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. ~~Might also be worth looking at Atex (software) to delete if this article ends up being deleted - otherwise Atex could be merged here.~~ Struck the last comment. Only a part of Atex was acquired. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Evans (theatre director)[edit]

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

This article is a barely sourced WP:BLP of a non-notable theatre director. The references provided do not provide substantial coverage of this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is complicated because there is another theatre director called Tim Evans (involved with the US Steppenwolf Theatre), there are brief mentions in association with the Factory theatre but they don't seem to reach WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources so not notable. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Achinoam Nini[edit]

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

No References for Notability. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of coverage in news media and books, as well as this listing in Contemporary Musicians: https://books.google.com/books?id=lho6AQAAIAAJ&q=%22Achinoam+Nini%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Achinoam+Nini%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij3KbOjt3fAhUE2IMKHeLsBk4Q6AEITDAom Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Text is lightly paraphrased version of bio info at subject's official site, and the edit summary "Official edit by Eli Katz on behalf of Achinoam Nini." leads me to add the talk page template accordingly. No opinion on notability currently, but there's no question this is WP:PROMO contrary to Wikipedia's policies, and that copyright issues will have to be sorted out in the very near future. Bakazaka (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Achinoam Nini is a very notable singer with a globe-spanning career. There is absolutely no reason to delete it because some PR person commandeered it. I reverted to the former version, which comes with 14 refs and demonstrates long-standing notability.--Geewhiz (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. Highly notable singer with a national and international career spanning decades with many notable works. easily passes WP:GNG and ticks several boxses in the WP:MUSICBIO SNG as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears completely notable. PamD 10:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and close. Weird nom. Clearly notable. BabbaQ (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the people who want to keep this! Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:17, 12 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 Serbian Kingdom. I will leave the editors discretion which article to merge to the other. In any case, this is a non-delete closure. Tone 20:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Serbia (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Redundant to Serbian Kingdom as it now stands. Both are disambiguation pages created by User:Sorabino. Since the other one has more history and is older, I am nominating this one. We do not need two disambiguation pages for the same thing. Redirecting it to the other article would also be acceptable. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What would be the reason for deletion? Page Kingdom of Serbia (disambiguation) is functioning as a useful DP for the term GBS: "Kingdom of Serbia", while page Serbian Kingdom functions as a useful DP for the term GBS: "Serbian Kingdom". Terms are not identical, they are used in various contexts throughout literature, and therefore both of them are legitimate. It seems to me that proposal for "deletion" has no grounds. Sorabino (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Kingdom of Serbia that is not also a Serbian Kingdom. Pure redundancy of no aid to the reader. Srnec (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not giving any reason for the proposed "deletion" of DP Kingdom of Serbia (disambiguation). Main articles are called Kingdom of Serbia and Kingdom of Serbia (medieval). Therefore, DP Kingdom of Serbia (disambiguation) is obviously useful, and legitimate. No need for "deletion". Sorabino (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Srnec is right. Trillfendi (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if "Srnec is right" then you should also delete DP Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) and transfer its content to present redirect Italian Kingdom, but that would be equally absurd. Sorabino (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think these names are dissimilar enough for separate disambig pages. Instead, I would recommend a merge with two subheadings for "Serbian Kingdom" and "Kingdom of Serbia". I have no opinion under which name this page should be located or which current disambig should be redirected. b ui dhe (formerly Catrìona) 07:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per it being quite a valid search term. IMHO I am quite surprised the nominator didn't consider this (or, as it seems, anyone else). It could redirect the other way as well. If there's any slight piece of information lost with the transfer then of course a tiny Smerge could be possible as well. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 08:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the other way is fine for me too. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one and redirect Serbian Kingdom here. The latter is not a proper dab page IMO: Two realms do not kingdoms make. They can be added here under "See also", however. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for two pages covering essentially the same topic. Agree with Clarityfiend that this one should be kept and to redirect Serbian Kingdom here. older ≠ wiser 12:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a plausible search-term and there is no reason to prefer one over the other for disambiguation purposes. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Kingdom of Serbia (disambiguation)" is not a plausible search term... Srnec (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, now you are not making any sense, regarding search plausibility. Would you say the same for Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation) or any other title that contains addition "(disambiguation)"? Your proposal for "deletion" still remains unclear. Sorabino (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Kingdom of Italy (disambiguation)" is not a plausible search term. Who would type that? I think perhaps you don't understand how disambiguation pages work or what they're for. My deletion proposal is simple: we have two pages doing the same thing and should only have one. Since you object to a redirect either way, we have to go this route. As I wrote in the nomination, a redirect would (obviously) be acceptable to me in lieu of deletion. Srnec (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Serbian Kingdom to this page. No reason to have two pages, and "Kingdom of Serbia" is the proper name, and would be consistent with other DAB pages of this type. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting the other page here is a perfectly acceptable solution to me. It was the first thing I did. (I also left a note on the talk page.) I was reverted. (No edit summary.) So I redirected this page there. That was also reverted. (No edit summary, no note, nothing.) So I came here. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in Serbian Kingdom per Patar knight. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in: a good compromise. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ousala Aleem[edit]

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

I am unable to find multiple independent sources talking about this individual. He is associated with some notable people (e.g. as a manager) but the citations only mention him briefly (if at all) and don't go into detail. He himself has not won any of the awards mentioned. Google search for his names result in fewer than 200 pages, none of them addressing him in any significance. ... discospinster _talk 20:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mall G[edit]

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

Autobiography of a Massachusetts rapper which fails to meet notability guidelines for musical biographies, general biographies, and general articles. No significant coverage located on completing due diligence. Jack Frost (talk) 11:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 13:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Jet Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. A few mentions, but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As it stands, clear delete. There are a few potential references in Google, but none seem to add up to GNG. At best, most are just name-checks of the company or press releases about small deals.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TechSee[edit]

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

Sources provided by author do not adequately demonstrate notability. Balkywrest (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete an article the moment it is created. Certainly there is room for improvement, but at the moment, there are several solid sources attesting to notability. What ever happened to the policy of not biting the newbies?Geewhiz (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No actually reliable references for showing notability , though you have to actually look at them to realize that. Being a Gartner Cool Vendor is the best, and its a trivial distinction; ditto for a very minor mention by Telecrunch. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added another source citing Accenture's partnership with TechSee. I believe I have demonstrated notability - we were selected as a Gartner Cool Vendor and had dedicated articles (not minor mentions) about our technology written up on TechCrunch and The Verge, major tech journalism sites, and Intelligent CIO, a prominent trade publication.Jakegreenblatt (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promo article; not shown notable for stand alone article, per WP:Corp. Kierzek (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:CORP. This is a clearly promotional article. Skirts89 (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Whether the article was created a day or a year ago is irrelevant—notability is what counts. However, this is clearly a promotional article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are self-serving. It's getting snowy outside.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:33, 10 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] "The Unshackled". www.facebook.com.

[2] "About Us". The Unshackled.

[1]

[2]