Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 June	30 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Chor Bani Thangaat Kare. A clear preference for redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reelium Films[edit]

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

Film company of questionable notability. Apparently only 1 film so far, only source is Facebook (have yet to find a reliable source online) Wgolf (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chor Bani Thangaat Kare as {{r from company name}} plus {{r to related topic}} leaving cats intact (this could have been tried first with an explanation that it was in lieu of an AFD nom plus an inline comment requesting that it not be converted back to an article until the company met NCORP) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as the company is not independently notable at this time, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as referred above. Kaweendra (talk) 06:23, 5 July 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. ST47 (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emel Aydan[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage of this person. Two bottom references are user generated and the second reference goes to a Wikipedia article (not considered a reliable source). And that Wikipedia article has no relationship to this one. Previously Prodded [1] (with page curation) which was removed [2] with no improvement to the article. Does not meet GNG or NACTOR. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the second reference does not go to an article on Wikipedia. The source is actually a book, whose author has a page here and that's why his name is linked. By the way, as I said in my edit summary before, this person seems to be notable as the most recognized transgender pronographic actor in Turkey. Compared to articles about other such actors, it seems that this one can be kept as well. Keivan.f^Talk 23:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything in this poorly sourced article that rises to the claim of being "as the most recognized transgender pronographic actor in Turkey'. Right now you have two brief listings, and two citations from a non-RS (the Turkish equivalent of imdb). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: I wish I can read and evaluate Turkish sources because of those Google Books and News hits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I wouldn't have even bothered myself to create an article about her, but when a notable Turkish newspaper such as Milliyet covers her story (1) and a platform such as CNN Türk publishes news about her (2) that's probably an indication of notability. Keivan.f^Talk 04:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of independent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it's not notable and fails GNG.Forest90 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure I have ever seen an article on a more throughly non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing NACTOR. --Dom from Paris (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a shred of evidence to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Consensus indicates this article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rio (Amatrice)[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources indicate that this province exists. Fails WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep on GEOLAND grounds. Rio is a frazione (village), with more sources at it:Rio (Amatrice). Its population is presumably lower than it was prior to population decline and the earthquake. It appears to be the only such village of Amatrice with an article. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like there are plenty of sources available in Italian and maybe French. First one I found was [3], which isn't necessarily sigcov but gets it over WP:V and potentially WP:GEOLAND. I've linked the article to its other languages. SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The it.wiki article is much more extensive and better sourced, so sources clearly exist to establish the notability of this place. Mccapra (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears from the above responses that this article qualifies for a place on Wikipedia. I'm going to speedy close as Keep. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by ST47, CSD G3 blatant hoax, CSD A7 notability not asserted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric van Viele[edit]

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

Another one of these really old articles for someone with little to no notability. I can't find much for him. He was in only one film-Nosferatu, which if not delete a redirect. It says he was a stage actor, but I can't find any info about his stage career online. Wgolf (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Though the creator's other later edits appear good faith, the text is fundamentally the same as at its original 2006 creation and the claim that he was executed for stalking and violence is extraordinary and requires sources -- not found at GNews archive, nor anywhere else including Murnau (1970). I can't find his name in any source prior to 2006, however he does appear once (in the credits) in Nosferatu (1922): eine Symphonie des Grauens (2013), and that's presumably a reliable source not subject to citogenesis... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to be found at all. I think it’s a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is a hoax. The Wayback Machine and the article's history reveal that the WWW site that used to be an external hyperlink in the article was joke legal advice from a fake WWW site for the non-existent law firm in ABC sitcom Welcher & Welcher, where one can find the claim about this person being made. The ABC took the page down in 2006. Wikipedia still carries the hoax, 13 years later. Uncle G (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject: So You've Defamed a Politican? at the Wayback Machine (archived 2006-08-24)
Comment-feel free to add it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia then Wgolf (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it to Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, hopefully they will add it (they never added a couple I have found that I have mentioned. I would add them but I know I will mess up the table). Though not sure if it would count as this guy was apparently real but the story wasn't Wgolf (talk) 20:54, 30 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab Abroshan[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage of this individual is available. Also, there is no independent coverage of many of his supposed accomplishments in the "Filmography", "Festivals", and "Awards" sections. Possible COI author - see edit history here, here and here. Fails BASIC, ANYBIO, and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparently pretty-much only Persian language sources (not disqualifying, but makes sourcing more difficult), and the sources provided don't meet both WP:RS + WP:SIGCOV; apparently no major awards for his work or other indications that WP:CREATIVE would be met; and his article was deleted on notability grounds on fa-wiki at fa:شهاب آب‌روشن‎. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage from what I parsed through translate. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CREATIVE, fails WP:GNG. Young, with a unique name and zero hits in gNews [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Responses at this AfD show that this page is acceptable as a stand alone Wikipedia article based on editing conventions for top-level sports teams. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Spikers' Turf[edit]

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

This is a content fork of this article: 2019 Spikers’ Turf Reinforced Conference and is actually redundant. This page was originally created as a redirect. This article has less information then the other one. Recommend making this a redirect page for the other article (the main article). This page serves no purpose as it is. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is the succession of 2015 Spikers' Turf, 2016 Spikers' Turf, 2017 PVL season and 2018 PVL season. The 2019 season has just started, the collegiate and open conferences will soon be added. Rick (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the point is there are two articles covering the same exact content. It doesn't seem to make sense. One seems to be redundant or a content fork. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Top-level Philippine domestic sports tournaments (notably excepting association football) have more than one tournament (aka "conferences") held in succession in a season. Presumably it's still the beginning of the season, and there's just one tournament on the way. This is not unusual and there should be a second conference after the current one ends. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for explaining this Howard the Duck. I will go with the flow here and speedy close this AfD as Keep. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 30 June 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. ST47 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Sharma[edit]

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

This actress doed not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO. And no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A google search shows enough websites writing about the actress. But the article in its current state on ENWIKI is very poorly structured and sourced. Maybe a good rewrite will be sufficient. HM Wilburt (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a truly terribly written article, one citation being cross-linked to the subject's name for some bizarre reason. I thought that the Deccan Chronicle source, cited three separate times for no good reason, was a good start. It is in-depth when it comes to biography of the subject, covering the subject's date of birth, family background, and early career; and DC is not known to be one of the paid news in India purveyors.
But it turns out to have been written after this article, and seems to have lifted things either straight from this article, covering the ground in exactly the same order using much the same words, or an undisclosed press release that also generated this coverage that was also dated 2019-05-06. Interestingly, WBR disclosed its earlier recycled press-release coverage of this subject, including this back in 2016, stating it right in the bylines and putting an explicit warning about unreliability at the bottom of the pieces.
I'm not convinced that people are checking facts beyond recycling Wikipedia and press releases, not least because of the explicit statements of that; but also because it seems that otherwise contemporary sources cannot agree on what the subject studied at university. Wikipedia, before the press-release-inspired news coverage, said law; with no clue as to where that information comes from as it is not in any of the sources then cited. It might be outright fiction. WBR, going from the undisclosed press-release, said rather that it was a B.Com. What's correct? We don't know because no-one has actually done the legwork to find out properly. There are not any sources that are trustworthy for anything.
It seems that everything is self-publicity and not independent sources, even the stuff that at first blush appears that it is not. I think that an accurate biography of this subject cannot be written in compliance with our content policies.
Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Masum Reza^📞 22:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR - no notable achievements and no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Just Chilling (talk) 17:24, 6 July 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. As stated by a commentator "non-notable album from a notable group". There is nothing that is sourced so there is nothing to merge. Just Chilling (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Building 429 (2000 album)[edit]

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

Independent release that did not chart and received no notable coverage. Band is definitely notable but this album is not. Toa Nidhiki05 19:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Early, non-notable album from a notable group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the Article because it is not notable.Forest90 (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case of deletion some info shall to be preserved, at least some release tidbits, like the studio and the producer, plus the tracklisting. Let's incorporate them into Building 429 or Building 429 discography in any way. This Is Where I Came In (talk) 07:29, 6 July 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. Unanimity that this artist is clearly not notable with the article failing WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J-Xtreme[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as A7: no assertion of significance. I can't find anything on Google either. MarginalCost (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on my research which would indicate any hope of meeting the guidelines for general notability, notability for biographies, or notability for musical artists. In all honesty (as MarginalCost suggests); the article likely meets the threshold for speedy deletion under A7. --Jack Frost (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could have been speedied. Blythwood (talk) 09:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking a reliable source. Barca (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per CSD#A7 (person). --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail passes notability and I couldn't find any reliable sources on Google either. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete non notable musician without any reliable sources.Ahmedelcunbal (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it's not notable itself really and fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Curious George 2: Follow That Monkey!#Sequel. And protect. Sandstein 07:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious George 3: Back to the Jungle[edit]

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

Keeps getting janked out of redirect by a variety of IPs and one-shots. I'd like to get a clear assessment here, and if redirected, some semi-protection of the redirect. My take is that this direct-to-DVD movie has nowhere near the required independent notability for an article, and should be redirected to Curious George 2: Follow That Monkey!#Sequel. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect and get the WP:BLUELOCK so that this doesn't happen again. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have the article on WP:RPP AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the request for protection. Here is why: The article has not been redirected since the AfD nomination was made, and should not be redirected while this discussion goes on. The question of whether it should be an article or a redirect will be settled at this discussion. In the meantime it is the full article that is being nominated for deletion (or redirect). If the decision at this AfD is to redirect, the closing administrator can be requested to protect the redirect if that turns out to be needed. MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like we need more discussion on whether this merits its own page or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless someone shows up and gives us a list of WP:GNG-meeting sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 3 July 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 07:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sahiden[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, does not demonstrate notability, there is a lack of independent sources, and the article is nothing more than a track listing. WikiSmartLife (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't want to claim that I know everything, but I'm pretty sure that this article is notable based on our guidelines. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to work on it over the past two months, but that doesn't mean that independent sources do not exist. This page has place for improvement. To be more specific, searching the topic on Google brings up articles by famous Turkish newspapers Hürriyet, Milliyet, and Habertürk. So in my opinion, it can be improved, and there's no need to delete it. Keivan.f^Talk 04:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the comment An article needs to demonstrate notability. Just stating that there's scope for improving it isn't enough. Schwede 66 05:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about the possible ways this article can be improved. But, of course, since I'm the only person here who can read in Turkish and happens to be the article's creator, it will be up to me to work on it, unless someone familiar with the language decides to help. Keivan.f^Talk 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't forget that this article has a big lack of sources, and does not demonstrate notability. I am unsure of whether Turkish newspapers such as the ones Keivan.f mentioned are reliable sources. To better understand this, we need to analyse WP:NEWSORG and see whether those are good ones to mention as references. If they are, this article could improve with more reliable sources. If they aren't, we need to find more reliable sources to look at. With thanks, WikiSmartLife (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the references, one is the album's page on Sony Music Turkey, one is an online music shop, and the other is the album on Apple Music. This demonstrates a very big lack of reliable sources, like I have mentioned repeatedly, and we need major improvements on not only that but the article itself and its notability. Currently it is just a track listing with 3 sources, all associated with music and media. WikiSmartLife (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now checked WP:NALBUM, and we need to find additional sources to fit this. WikiSmartLife (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make something clear. Just like The New York Times and The Washington Post, newspapers that publish works written by well-known writers could be used as references. That's why I didn't mention a Turkish tabloid or magazine to be used as a source of information for this article. Keivan.f^Talk 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Keivan.f: I was just saying that because the article has a lack of references. If those papers were notable enough to be used as references, they would have made good references. WikiSmartLife (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I see what I can do about it. I'll work on the article as soon as I get some free time. Keivan.f^Talk 13:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few 'independent' sources for now, using some of the articles found in the Turkish newspapers. Keivan.f^Talk 03:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced to three national daily newspapers that describe it at length, so notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It remains unclear if the Turkish sources are reliable sources. Giving it another week to allow such a discussion to take place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is very inactive. What are people's thoughts? WikiSmartLife (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is noted that a mayor of a city of this size is not automatically notable and there is a clear consensus that notability requirements, particularly WP:NPOL are not met. Just Chilling (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Lovell Stanners[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as clearing WP:NPOL #2. I was the original creator here, a decade ago when our notability standards for mayors were much looser than they are now -- but under current standards, a city has to be much larger than Owen Sound before its mayors receive an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors. The only sources here, however, are a single local news article about her wedding, and a single dead link about the election of her successor, which is not enough. First discussion, several years ago, landed "no consensus" because a couple of people laboured under the misconception that as long as news articles could be found that had her name in them, it didn't matter whether she was actually their subject or not -- most of the sources brought to bear as "evidence" of her notability were glancing namechecks of her existence as a giver of soundbite in coverage of other things or people, not notability-supporting coverage about her. So I let it slide at the time, and then entirely forgot about it -- but in the five years hence, it still hasn't been improved a whit, and the sources offered by the keep contingent in the first discussion don't offer anything substantive to improve it with either. The notability test that a smalltown mayor needs to pass is that she can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks her out as much more special than most other smalltown mayors, not just the ability to technically verify that she served as mayor. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I wrote in the first discussion, "The question is (usually) not about verifying information about the office - but is there "substantive" coverage of the life of the individual" (to determine whether a local, independently-elected mayor passes WP:NPOL). As a community, we prefer nationalization (or internationalization of coverage), especially for smalltown mayors, to show that the subject is worthy of notice in an international encyclopedia. --Enos733 (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Thus, the mayor of a town of 20,000 marrying is going to get coverage if there is a newspaper for that town or for the general region that tries to have any coverage of the town at all. Most mayors do not marry while in office, but it in no way adds to actual notability. Yet that is what this article largely turns on. There are way, way way too many places with over 20,000 people for us to consider every mayor of every such place notable, even if we limited it to places of 20,000 people or more that were also regionally signifant cities, that is had to be the largest place in their county etc or at least on par, thus excluding the thousands of suburbs just in the US alone that are truly small places with 20,000 in larger metro areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being candidate or mayor of Owen Sound, under current standards does not mean passes notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:14, 3 July 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 07:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orisha Sound[edit]

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

Non notable band. Notability is not inherited from those they have worked with. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Article has multiple sources but not multiple that are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of them. Non reliable blogs, press release, imdb. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gold level imdb-pro contributor with over 10k accepted contributions here to help. I have researched her imdbpages. She has two pages nm4599262, nm6529920 and is also known as Orisha Pelzer. Her imdbpages total 3 credits, of wich 2 shortfilms. I am not totally convinced that she would pass WP:NACTOR. If there are any more imdb related questions at all please talkpage me. SimonRichter1337 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not really enough to pass GNG, and clearly there is a fail of any music notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 2 July 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 07:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Oh! (Jérémy Amelin song)[edit]

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

Non notable promo single. Claimed charting is BADCHARTS. No significant sales, no national rotation. Lacks coverage in Independent reliable sources. Claimed "review" (faked article title) is not a review. Claimed "maximum five stars" is a lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don’t all songs have the potential to be “maximum five stars”? Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:25, 29 June 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 07:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imma Bitch[edit]

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

Non notable promo single. No charting, no significant sales, no rotation. Lacks coverage in Independent reliable sources. Claimed "reviews" (faked article titles) are not reviews or are dead dead. Claimed "maximum five stars" is a lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holy routine coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 14:42, 30 June 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. There are reasonable arguments on both sides but, after two relists, there is no consensus as to notability and I am not seeing a sound basis for a third relist. Just Chilling (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing Guild[edit]

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

this article about a fictional subject cites no secondary reliable sources WP:RS are required to WP:V verify its general notability per WP:GNG. The subject of the article may therefore be unsuitable for a standalone article as it may lack WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. AadaamS (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

″may″ is not good enough, really. Does it? Or does it not? What research did you do to find out? You've made two identical boilerplate nominations, and you aren't demonstrating that you've actually checked yourself how deletion policy applies.
This is a good example of why research and a good nomination rationale, rather than this boilerplate poor one, counts. In stark contrast to Sardaukar (AfD discussion), sources do exist that document this subject in some depth. Smith 2009, just for starters, is an entire chapter of a non-fiction book that talks about this subject, written by someone who works at NASA JPL.
I did say that Dune was widely analysed. Uncle G (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Smith, John C. (2009). "Navigators and the Spacing Guild". In Grazier, Kevin (ed.). The Science of Dune: An Unauthorized Exploration into the Real Science Behind Frank Herbert's Fictional Universe. Psychology of Popular Culture. BenBella Books, Inc. ISBN 9781935251408.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G's analysis. Though fictional, the topic is notable. In the spirit of full disclosure, I read the original novel 50 years ago and saw the film and part of the miniseries. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor element in a fictional work. One third-party source does not establish notability. Sandstein 07:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge condensed version to Organizations of the Dune universe#Spacing Guild. The topic requires a little more explanation than what is currently in this list, but not quite as much as the current standalone article.— TAnthony^Talk 17:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Dune Bene Gesserit#Murbella. Can be merged if third-party sources are found. Sandstein 07:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murbella[edit]

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

this article about a fictional subject cites no secondary reliable sources WP:RS are required to WP:V verify its general notability per WP:GNG. The subject of the article may therefore be unsuitable for a standalone article as it may lack WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. AadaamS (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Google Scholar search generates a number of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to List of Dune Bene Gesserit#Murbella. The bulk of the Google Scholar results are unrelated to Dune, and the others seem to only be casual mentions of the character. In any case, the current article is all plot, but can certainly be recreated if and when adequate sources can be found and applied. This is a similar case to Mentat and Sardaukar, both of which were recently merged into Organizations of the Dune universe. I'll take it upon myself to condense and merge the content should that be the result of this TfD.— TAnthony^Talk 23:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of the mentions found appear to be WP:TRIVIALMENTION. AadaamS (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think a better merge destination is List of Dune secondary characters, which contains entries for more substantial BG characters like Lucilla (Dune). List of Dune Bene Gesserit contains a brief entry for every BG big or small, and could still include the current Murbella blurb.— TAnthony^Talk 02:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per TAnthony. Govvy (talk) 18:01, 30 June 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 07:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Barcellona[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Has no significant coverage for, relatively speaking, minor achievements. If kept, needs a fundamental rewrite to meet quality expectations. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note this comment by the article's creator at his own talk page: I believe this page should stay on for a few reasons. 1. Miss Florida pageant hasn't started yet, it's in two weeks. She could be Miss Florida and a Miss America contestant and possibly a Miss America and even if she's isn't I still believe this page is worth keeping. Millions of people have some form of autism and why not a page or several of those who have autism. Inspire people. Plus I'm sure there will be more articles about her in the upcoming days, week. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Short of winning Miss America she is not going to be notable as a beauty queen. Winning Miss Florida does not make her notable, so being a contestant in Miss Florida even less so. Someone running in a primary election might end up winning a seat in the US house, which would make them notable, but we do not let stand articles on every primary contestant, even for the time between the official filing deadline and the primary election. Yet the number of officially filed primary candidates rarely exceeds 10, while Barcellona is among hundreds if not thousands who make it to be competitors in a state level beauty contest. THere are 51 candidates for Miss America, all US states plus DC. To give some perspective Miss Michigan only has one article on a person who won that title who was not Miss America, that is Ann Penelope Marston, who was pictured in Sports Illustrated due to her notability in archery. I am still not 100% sure Marston is notable, but clearly Barcellona is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Athaenara. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Dutta[edit]

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

Having 1.3 million subscribers isn't something notable that you need a wiki article. There are many youtuber with 1M sub, this youtuber isn't even in top 5000. 1M sub isn't something significant achievement. His name appears on some of the regular news coverage which is not enough to establish notability (Article have some reference but they are about how he got 500k sub/ he is first youtuber from bengal to get 500k sub etc). No significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a rising Youtuber has a definite meaning, it means "not yet notable as a Youtuber. Fails WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON. this article should be deleted.--Nahal^(T) 09:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. there are thousands of youtuber having 1 million subs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.174 (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Created by a now currently blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 4 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Hill (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails WP:NBASEBALL. Now out of MiLB after signing w/ independent league team Pozzi.c (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.-- Yankees10 18:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- has succeed so far but WP:TOOSOON thus he has not at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 20th-round draft choice who now plays in an independent league after being cut by the Red Sox. Currently doesn't meet notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep MLB First round draft pick, with playing time in minor league over 4 years, plenty of coverage. Lightburst (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: he was drafted in the 20th round not the first. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GPL93 Thanks. Article has misprint Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 3 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Germany[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, and all cited coverage is merely routine. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and writeups of routine NFL transactions don't establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination & GPL93. Geoffroi (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Division II player (the other Notre Dame) does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. And my searches turn up zero in terms of significant coverage, so that the subject also does not meet the WP:GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, subject does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:55, 5 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Álvaro Contreras y Carvajal[edit]

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

delete, there is no evident reason of notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was expecting this to be one of the numerous articles we get in NN nobles, with the article existing to provide a genealogical link (something that we do not like): this does not even do that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Peter. Geoffroi (talk) 22:21, 29 June 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. Nobody actually !voted keep, but a couple of contributors did suggest that it probably cleared notability guidelines, and that sources could probably be found if sought. Nobody has actually identified any such sources, however. Steve Smith (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Holloway, University of London Boat Club[edit]

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

Non notable sports club, no coverage in reliable sources Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage seems to be available to an adequate standard for everything claimed here. I'm confused though: why is Royal Holloway not notable when St Edmund's is? In the US, we have whole categories and sub-categories for college rowing: Category:College rowing in the United States. So is college rowing a notable topic or not? And why would this vary between nations? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure on the criteria for US sports article so cannot really comment on that. However, this team probably has 50 members max, has no notable members, no mention in sources of wins at major national competitions such as BUCS, Head of the River or Henley Regattas. Compared to University of London Boat Club or Oxford Brookes University Boat Club. The only source here is the club website and that isn't active anymore. It probably could have a brief mention at the Student Union article, if that was the outcome of discussion. Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is the point here, "Royal Holloway don't have a real boat club worthy of note?" Because otherwise we're either saying that some UK colleges are inherently more WP:Notable than others (Durham have 11 boat club articles here), or else we're judging objective notability on the subjective basis of current article quality. My own college ws A7'ed some years ago (I was physically a good rower, but a lazy sportsman and I really don't do mornings). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its been going for 95 years. The article needs references but it would be very surprising if it were not just as notable as the other rowing clubs.Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "Its been going for 95 years." - please see WP:ITSOLD, that said, an obvious merge target for this would be a "Sports" section/subsection at Royal Holloway, University of London (i note there is no mention of this club in the article, is that a reflection of its non-notability? or the college's emphasis on academic, rather that sporting, endeavours (there is a paragraph on sports stating that "some of the best sports facilities of any university institution in the London area,[27] and helped build the college's reputation as a sporting institution of excellence" in the redelopment subsection of Royal Holloway, University of London#Campus). Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear fail of WP:GNG. There is nothing sourced that is mergeable. With regard to a comparison with the situation in America, there is a clear difference. In the US college sports are a big deal. In the UK, however, with a few notable exceptions e.g The Boat Race, they generally attract little, if any public or mainstream media attention. Just Chilling (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought this is an automatic fail so there's no point searching. On second thoughts I decided to do a search and as expected there was nothing there. Szzuk (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep: withdrawn by nominator and no other editors have argued to delete Hugsyrup (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isfahan City Center[edit]

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

WP:N. Ahmad^Talk 09:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ahmad^Talk 09:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble believing the largest mall in Iran that is larger than the Mall of the Emirates is not notable nor would there be coverage Persian. I'm troubled the nom doesn't even bother with a sentence and gives zero rationale to support their WP:JUSTA "WP:N."Oakshade (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oakshade: My main rationale was that I couldn't find enough news coverage about the subject of the Article in Persian sources, However, comments in this page convinced me that it is notable. I withdraw my nomination , and sorry for taking your time. Many thanks for comments. Ahmad^Talk 12:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The size of 465,500 square metres (5,011,000 sq ft) strongly indicates notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing could be improved. However considering we have coverage from the UAE - The National - stating this is "Isfahan City Center, a commercial and entertainment centre, is the largest shopping mall in Iran. Covering approximately 6,500,000 square feet" - it seems safe to assume this is notable, though sourcing for this will probably mostly be in Farsi. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the nominator has retracted, but I'll register my vote anyway. I added a source attributed to Bloomberg and also some headings. Havradim (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, who says size doesn't matter? needs improvement but editors need to remember WP:CONTN, sources discussed above/listed in the article indicate notability so a keep as WP:GNG met. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 2 July 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, default to keep. Steve Smith (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Christian Radio[edit]

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

Article lacks notability. Currently reads like an advert. I tried looking for sources, but couldn't find any. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable according to WP:NRADIO. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep - agree that the article needs more independent sources (note it is also referred to as "Vision Christian Media") as well). However, subject appears to be a notable broadcaster to at least 6 cities in Australia that would meet notability standards in WP:NRADIO, and is part of United Christian Broadcasters (which doesn't link to this page and has different content). If decision is made to delete this article, it should be ~~redirected~~merged into to the United Christian Broadcasters page. Bookscale (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my position after finding other sources below. Bookscale (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--passes NRADIO due to its large coverage area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Christian Broadcasters#Vision Christian Media Australia where it is mentioned - WP:NRADIO states "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors ...". No reliable sources have been found that supports any of the key criteria and, further, the article fails WP:V which is policy and, separately, does not meet WP:GNG. Unless the key claims can be stood up with independent reliable sources I don't see how this article can survive as a separate page. Just Chilling (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources around that discuss the network's operations other than in the radio station's site itself, particularly when you search under some of its old names (Vision FM and UCB Australia). E.g. in a 2 minute Google search I found this, this, this, this,and this. Bookscale (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made an attempt in cleaning up and putting some sources (a mix of primary and secondary) in the article. Some of the unreferenced history and all but the relevant links at the bottom have been removed. Bookscale (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect or merge. Any one of those options is fine with me. Merge is perhaps the best outcome given the work that has gone into improving the article. So why not keep? Well, if [5] and [6] are considered to be among the reliable sources covering this radio station in detail, well that is flat out wrong. Both are clearly regurtitated press releases. And the Maryborough Advertiser is hardly a newspaper of record. The problem with having articles about these minor radio stations is that they are over-reliant on primary sources, as Just Chilling correctly points out above. And that in turn makes them susceptible to promotional tone, language and content. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you're calling it a "minor radio station" you've obviously not understood what the subject is really about - it's not a single radio station, it's a network that broadcasts across Australia, including to 6 major cities. radioinfo is a website that publishes news on happenings in the radio industry in Australia (which is difficult to otherwise find given that media organisations don't usually report on each other!) - there's really no evidence that they are press releases at all. The local articles are reports on the establishment of individual channels run by Vision in the local areas - so they are relevant. To make this even clearer, I've now added references to 3 separate chapters in "A Companion to the Australian Media" volume published in 2014, where Vision is mentioned in each. It is the only current national network mentioned in the "religious broadcasting" chapter in the work, and it also makes it into chapters published on radio in Queensland and the Northern Territory. Bookscale (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete. It lacks notability for a standalone article. The audience is very narrow. The refs are routine. Szzuk (talk) 20:32, 7 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ndubuisi Nzenweofor[edit]

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

The references seem to be mostly PR, and no clear notability.Even the one in TheGuardian Nigeria is mostly about the firm, and is basically a platform for him to say whatever he pleases. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any other references, I have to agree with John. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:34, 3 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan Neupane[edit]

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

Not notable for wikipedia. No coverage in secondary sources. Most of the cites are to papers he's employed in; even then the cites are only to passing mentions. Only one acceptable cite is the Kathmandu Post report on Kathmandu city felicitating some journalists. He received an award given out by a city, shared with 3 other people. No other claim to notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 29 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Giri[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the notability criteria. The subject has published some of the reports that he wrote. No report has been published by a secondary source on the subject. All the references on the article are news reports authored by the subject, not on him; except one report that has a passing mention of him but even that is from a primary source. So, nothing to satisfy GNG at all, veers into PROMOTION and OR instead. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Tysons, Virginia[edit]

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

Almost none of these buildings are notable or even that tall. An unincorporated area with a population of about 19,000, isn't that impressive either. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" no(sense) reason given in nomination for deletion. Informed article about development of area and construction. Djflem (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "no(sense)" is code for don't delete because WP:ILIKEIT. The list must meet notability requirements that can be found at WP:LISTN--Rusf10 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tysons is more than an unincorporated area. It is home to the tallest building in the Washington DC metro area, the most valuable parcel of land in Fairfax County, and numerous major construction projects resulting in more tall buildings than anywhere else in the metro DC region. Based on the amount of residential construction ongoing, the population will be more on the order of five times what was listed above in a few years and many more than that work in the area. StuffOfInterest (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of tallest buildings in Virginia, which already has most of this list, or merge with List of tallest buildings in Arlington, Virginia for a Northern Virginia list, though it fits in the main list as well. This gets excessive to have lists for every place with a handful of somewhat tall but largely non-notable buildings (not remotely skyscrapers). Reywas92^Talk 20:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went there once and the gridlock on the Beltway was so bad that I gave up and checked into a hotel for the night. Anywhere that's that busy is bound to be notable. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is this based on? –dlthewave ☎ 03:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be WP:ITISBUSY--Rusf10 (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced article. WP:Preserve, WP:Not paper, WP:GNG, WP:NEXIST, WP:Sigcov. And no compliance with WP:Before — nominator has ignored the article as it is and as it may become. No policy based or factually based reason for deletion proposed. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a reason to delete. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just point to multiple policies without explanation, see WP:JUSTAPOLICY and the article is not well sourced. I may have many sources, but they are not good sources. Half the sources are emporis.com which is a database and not even reliable. Also, applications with the county government, that's WP:PRIMARY and does nothing to establish notability. And for the last time, stop attacking me. I did a WP:BEFORE search and the policy not being met here is WP:LISTN which require significant coverage in reliable third-party sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again with the "Personal attack" line. Irrelevant. I have pointed to the policies, and we disagree as to their meaning and application. Burden is on you to provide reasons for deletion, and you are the proposer. Change in status quo ante. You create the problem, and then blame (WP:Personal attack – it's not about you, but it is about your process and wholesale AFDs) those who disagree with you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I have pointed to the policies" Yes, you have, but you have not explained how any of them apply, so its meaningless.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion. You've said it before. Repetition does make your arguments more persuasive. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Not all the information here is at List of tallest buildings in Virginia or Tysons, Virginia. Valid sourced material is here in the History section. Could that information be merged to one of the other articles? No valid reason given to delete this. If its redundant and can be merged elsewhere, then start a merge discussion on the article's talk page, don't try to delete it entirely. Dream Focus 15:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW well sourced article. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 03:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one was a miss. Tyson's Corner is one of the most important commercial centers in the Washington DC area with plenty of tall buildings and plenty of citations to boot. SportingFlyer T·C 04:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this will most probably be "kept" (duh, coola), but are there any books that discuss this (one of the indications of WP:NLIST)? and why does it have to be a list of the tallest buildings (lots of phallic symbolism here:)), why not just "Buildings of Tysons, Virginia" so that the toilet bowl, amongst others can be included?Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 2 July 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 Apollo 13. Sandstein 07:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo 13 Mission Operations Team[edit]

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

The bulk of this article is the citation, which could be on Wikisource. The rest of the article could be merged into the Apollo 13 article, there is not enough content available for a standalone article. Recommend merging any useful information into Apollo 13 article. Kees08 (Talk) 23:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep There are reliable sources which expend on the actions of the ground crew; for example [7], [8], also the following about the actions of President Nixon: [9]; and this which has a few summary references to the actions of the ground crew: [10]. That might or might not be enough to make this into a more complete article, and unsure whether it is sufficient to meet WP:N, as many of these talk of the ground crew only in the context of the overall Apollo 13 mission (thus it might not have sufficient significant coverage as a topic of its own, though there are some sources which do treat of it exclusively); and some of the information available from the sources is probably too detailed go in an article about the whole mission. In the current state, the content could be simply merged, however AfD is not cleanup and with a more thorough investigation (what I found above is just from a quick google search), the article could potentially be brought to sufficient standards, so I cannot recommend a merge; even though this information probably should also go in the Apollo 13 article if it is not already there. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notable for having received the Medal of Honor, so it must be listed at that article (the "courage" was notable for the flight crew). Rowan Forest (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't quite understand what you mean ("Notable for [...], so it must be listed at the article"???). Also, why Delete when nom suggests merge only (and merge is to an obviously notable directly-related topic)? Also there was never any question of the Medal of Honor (rather it is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, of which there is a picture in the article of it being awarded to the operations team and not the flight crew). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think what Rowan Forest meant is that to delete this article and move the contents of this article into Apollo 13. If we merge, one of the article has to be deleted.~~(removed per comment below)OkayKenG (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" is what you describe and it is a specific outcome different to "Delete". It usually requires leaving a redirect at the old page for contribution attribution reasons. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree. Totally forgot about that. Sorry. (also pinging Rowan Forest) OkayKenG (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A one-liner does not need its own article (specially if unreferenced). Yes, delete the article and enter that info at the article Medal of Honor - if that format allows for a list of recipients. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided sources in my !vote to possibly expand the article - AfD is not cleanup as stated previously (we are not discussing article content, we are discussing whether the subject of the article warrants one); and this has nothing to the with the Medal of Honor (the award was actually the Presidential Medal of Freedom). 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The team was awarded the Medal of XYZ. It is still a one-liner that can be mentioned in the recipient list of Medal XYZ. Delete. 01:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Note This user has now !voted a second time below; therefore striking previous !vote per instructions of WP:AFDFORMAT. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kees08: Edited your comment to add a Wikilink to the Apollo 13 page, hope that's okay with you. (so other editors could easily get to that page). Also if we merge with Apollo 13, merge most likely into the Mission notes section, as it already mentions the award given by Nixon to Lovell, Mattingly, The BBC does mention the team here. Just saying, the name of the article does not really even fit the contents. We don't really mention what they did to help return the astronauts. OkayKenG (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another source which goes to sufficient depth about the subject, and it mentions a film about it too. Now seems surely enough to pass WP:GNG (even if it might need to be moved to another title - though unsure on that); and in any case, given the potential new content (which as I said, might be too detailed to otherwise include in the main article) it would work well as a subpage of Apollo 13 (where it appears to be barely mentioned). Changed !vote 107.190.33.254 (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No sources, no content beyond 1) serving as mission operations team - belongs at Apollo 13. 2) Receiving medal of freedom - already noted in its proper place — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydromania (talk • contribs) 07:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signed your postSee you're relatively new to this. Have you read these guidelines about which arguments to make or not to make in discussions like this one, particularly this section about surmountable problems? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Edit: fix ping @Hydromania: 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability, just needs some cleanup.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Important and apposite material, but nowhere near enough volume to require a standalone article. Ripping this out of context and making it harder to find is doing the reader a disservice, if anything. (And I'm getting rather sick of "AfD is not cleanup" as a counter to merge suggestions in AfD discussions. Yes, should have been a merge discussion, but that is not a rationale for blocking reasonable solutions by process-wonkery.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Has sources but not significant enough to deserve standalone article, but it can be kept and not much reason to not since it is sourced. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would think the coverage of the team from various media sources including press, magazines, tv,documentaries, movies (Apollo 13), Books, etc.. would make this team notable. Obviously this article needs to be cleaned up and researched but there are a number of members who went on to other notable jobs and accomplishments after Apollo 13. A list of people at top positions and notable personnel on the team should probably attached to give this article signifigance. You can look at the Apollo 13 in the media section on the wiki page and find enough references to make a case for this page. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think a one-liner should be researched, referenced and expanded, then do it. As it is, is not viable as a stand-alone article -or even as a stub. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the note to whatever article, if someone bothers to source that note al all. Rowan Forest (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps I will add to the article. But they are certainly notable enough for a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceAdvisor (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done some work to this page to bring it up to par with other articles. I still need to do a paragraph on the accomplishments of the team during the mission, which were considerable, and source the information but I think the page looks better already. Also people need to make sure they understand that the Mission Operations Team is aka as, and more commonly referred to as Flight Control. I agree with PlanespotterA320 and the other people who voted keep. They received the Medal of Freedom award as a group so this page should exist. They are notable and wikipedia does not recommend delteing pages which should be published because they are not up to par. This page could be added to a wiki project for clean up rather than deleting it. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts thus far. One issue I have been a bit concerned with is that Mission Control is made up of a far greater list than whatever list you are likely to find. Any picture of Mission Control there is what, 30 or so people there? Times four shifts, that is 120 individuals. For the same reasons as listed at the List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients talk page, listing some but not all of the members undermines the original intention of Dr. Paine, which was to give credit to more than one individual. Other points brought up like members of the teams accomplishments after the article would belong in those individuals' articles and not here. I still think that any amount of material that can be generated on Mission Control for Apollo 13 could easily fit into the parent article. If we generate too much in that article, we can always fork it to this page in the future. Kees08 (Talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You seem intent on merging the article, so I am not going to continue work fixing this one. Ultimately I thnk they received the award separate from the astronaughts and have more than enough press an media coverage on their own accomplishments to be recognized independently. They covered this around the clock for a week, made documentaries, books and movies etc. I think an independent page certainly is within wiki guidelines, and an existing page certainly deserves protection, even if it needs cleanup. I certainly don't have a stake in this page except for my personal belief, so let the group decide. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notability has been established, the issue is that it is a tiny entry that cannot support an "article" on its own. Rowan Forest (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Can certainly be mentioned in the main article; not an independently notable topic. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 4 July 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TV20 (Malaysia)[edit]

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

Channel is not even broadcasting yet. Recreate in mainspace after being moved to Draft:TV20 (Malaysia) —teb728 t c 06:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing any info on this channel, definitely not notable. Should be deleted as it seems like OR. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. It is an article about a business that makes no claim to the business's significance. To make such a claim you first have to claim that the business actually exists. If A7 is a bit of a stretch then it's clearly a delete on the ground of non-notability in any case. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Chin-Pi Lu[edit]

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

From Google Scholar: her most cited paper is a erraturm to a paper of hers that received only 9 cites [11]. [12] The only other significantly cited paper is cited 49 times, in a minor university journal. Perhaps her career is early enough for some special consideration. I'll let the consensus decide. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let me address the specific criticism first. Lu typically published as Chin-Pi Lu or C.-P. Lu, so the Google Scholar search incorporating "Sylvia" misses a number of her most important papers. A search for Chin-Pi Lu math yields more accurate results. (Those with university access can also use the math-specific database linked in her article.) The culture of citation in mathematics is different from that in other scientific fields (the AMS has a statement on this), so directly comparing citation counts in math to citation counts in other disciplines will dramatically underestimate the effect of researchers on mathematics. One can read more about bibliometric issues in mathematics in an article by Ed Dunne.

It is (or should be) the practice to compare citations within fields, never between fields. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

More broadly, being an invited speaker at the ICM is a highly prestigious international academic honor, and therefore the subject is notable by Criterion #2 for Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). UrsulaGeorges ( talk ) 29 June 2019.

Weak keep. There's not a lot to say about her from our sources, but she is well cited for pure mathematics (top cites for "Chin-Pi Lu" 234, 151, 94, etc). ICM invited speaker is a signal honor, and we have an obituary published by the American Mathematical Society. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. She passes WP:PROF in ways typical for a mathematician. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the above. On a personal note (not a reason to keep the article), Sylvia was a quiet and shy individual who didn't talk much about herself, but when she did I found her personal story to be moving and inspirational. I will try to find some local printed material to verify this.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Best GS h-index I can find is 10, which is a bit slender, even for pure mathematics. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
keep, the subject pass GNG and WP:PROF and could consider as notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which categories of WP:Prof? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 5 July 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 List of Wikipedia controversies. Nomination withdrawn, closing early as WP:SNOW merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fram controversy[edit]

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

Only one reliable source covering this (I see no evidence Reclaim the Net is an RS). It's too early to tell whether this topic needs a standalone article or merely a mention in another (e.g. user revolt) – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Withdrawing; consensus at this point favours a merge and I do not wish to stand in its way. 03:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to draftsapce. We should not hide what the WMF did by deleting this article per WP:IAR. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems inevitable there will be additional stories. Also agree re IAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are at least two articles on this now. Seems to pass WP:SIGCOV. Otherwise WP:IAR per the above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This may be a too soon situation, or not. There is now a piece on the affair up on Breitbart — shitty institution but a pretty good article by a banned off Wikipedian. "Wikipedia Editors Revolt Over Site's Ban of Veteran Administrator." Reading the comments will make you really stupid though... I would link but Breitbart is blacklisted so you'll just have to run a search. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. No evidence yet that notability is WP:SUSTAINED. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now like Triptothecottage said. This is a great example of a current event that shouldn't have an article until the dust has settled a little. The last thing we need is a lot of arguing among editors about how to present in article space the arguing among editors that's going on in project space. E Eng 03:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, currently not even worthy of a merge. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Drmies. Way too small currently to be kept. It's WP:CRYSTAL to suggest more sources will surface.--N Ø 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Drmies and EEng. I concede that it is possible that this controversy may break through to notability, but I do not think that the time has yet come for an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now but to User_revolt#WMF_bans_Fram. It can of course be mentioned in both articles. For the interested, there's a Breitbart-article now as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies § 2019 and User revolt § Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram per WP:OVERLAP. This incident does not meet WP:GNG, as BuzzFeed News is the only qualifying source. "Reclaim the Net" is a blog with no listed editorial team that is less than a year old and not established enough to be a reliable source for assessing notability. Breitbart News (RSP entry) is a deprecated source and its unreliability was confirmed in a noticeboard discussion earlier this week. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies and/or User revolt#WMF bans Fram. There is no which way to pull an article with two citations to meet GNG. Though it is tempting to keep the article, I would have to severely lower my usual standards, and thus be a hypocrite. If in time this gets wider coverage, I will reconsider my !vote. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I'm not strongly opposed to a merge, but both articles (List of Wikipedia controversies and user revolt) floated as merge targets already have sections on the controversy. I see little content in this article suitable for merging without giving the topic undue weight, considering the lack of significant coverage. I'm also not opposed to draftifying until more coverage emerges; I proposed this resolution to the creator on their talk page, but they declined. – Teratix ₵ 10:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having for example Fram controversy and Wikimedia Foundation ban of Fram as redirects to User_revolt#Wikimedia_Foundation_ban_of_Fram. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the second one, seemed sensible. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Merge - until we get a second good source, this should be merged. I specifically say that if we get one more good source it can be returned as an article without prejudice Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge. Opposed to IAR to privilege a subject that we care about. No need for double standards just yet. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 12:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Until we get a solid 2nd source (at a minimum), this should be MERGEd. I won't be surprised if it ends up getting that 2nd source if this drags on, but it's too soon for a stand alone article at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Keep, to avoid duplication of effort by what's left of the encyclopedia as additional RS become available (not Breitbart, though ). Miniapolis 13:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's bad enough that this controversy is causing people to go bananas at WP:FRAM and that it's causing editors to leave. We shouldn't also start littering the article space with our outrage. I've never understood why "Keep, WP:IAR" is a legitimate argument, but "Keep, WP:ILIKEIT" is not. In this case, WP:IAR is an exceptionally flimsy argument. That policy says we should ignore rules if they keep us from improving the encyclopedia, not in order to spite WMF. I can't fathom why so many respected editors are falling for this.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies and if further develop emerge and more RS then could recreate. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge One RS justifies keeping the content and shows that it is barely significant enough to deserve a standalone article, atleast for now. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, without prejudice against expanding to a fuller article if shit really hits the fan later (media-wise, not on wiki). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because there happen to be a list for these, otherwise I would have said to delete. This is a big thing on Wikipedia, but not so big happening elsewhere in the world. Stryn (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. As noted by others above, there is no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. This incident is very important to Wikipedia editors, but as yet is not a topic that has received widespread coverage in independent reliable sources outside Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies for now, without prejudice towards recreation as its own article if more sources appear in the future. The Buzzfeed source is excellent and sufficient to justify inclusion on that page, but one good source is not enough to sustain an independent article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per many comments above, although I would so like to say keep. But at least for now, it fits best as an entry on the list page, rather than as a standalone. But a day or two from now... who knows. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Wikipedia controversies. The main reason I think the article should be merge is because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Only two news source talks about it, which is not enough to pass WP:GNG. INeedSupport ^:3 22:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Merge to user revolt clearly fails WP:DUE, while merge to Wikipedia controversies may fail WP:NOTNEWS. --Vituzzu (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Benjamin (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benjaminikuta: Can you tell us why you want the article to be kept? INeedSupport ^{It has gone downhill} 19:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deleting the article would improve the encyclopedia. Benjamin (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Mentioned in multiple low-quality sources:

I don't think any of the above sources should influence this AfD, but we should be on the lookout for SPAs who get attracted to this AfD because of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see how every source can push its own point of view on the affair just by emphasising different aspects. I don't see many outright inaccuracies, but a lot of spin. – Teratix ₵ 11:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The "story" is not finished yet, but seems to be winding down. Although some outside coverage has been noted, this is mainly an in-house back-room crisis of confidence and a growth spike in Wikipedia's and WMF's learning curve, but is currently an inside-baseball series of events. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note. In case anyone did not see it, the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 30 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morrigan Press[edit]

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

This article on the company Morrigan Press was created by blocked COI SPA User:Morrigan Press. The article has only one source. A standard BEFORE (newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, JSTOR) fails to find additional sources. The article lacks WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentions in secondary sources are trivial. No indication of passing WP:NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Stevens[edit]

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

Source 1 is about a film and source two is a podcast. Therefore fails GNG as well as ENT. I suggest we redirect to AVN Hall of Fame but that will require a discussion I believe Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. A podcast can be a reliable source. I think the references and awards add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big assertion. Please explain how this podcast meets the GNG. By rejecting PORNBIO the community expressly rejected the concept that these awards were enough for a BLP Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:CREATIVE and the GNG given he is more notable as a director. He is notorious for having allegedly shot the ending scene of Snuff (film) which was controversially promoted as depicting a real life murder.[13][14][15][16] He was also arrested for allegedly filming an underage girl.[17]link to his real name. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Morbidthoughts. Notable as a director. Along with awards and sources already in the article, he has had adequate coverage in the books linked above to meet GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources presented by MT. –Davey2010^Talk 20:37, 4 July 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaya Re[edit]

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

This article does not comply with WP:ANYBIO and the reference provided is simply a review of the Chocholate film and not about Jaya Re. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNG requires multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 2 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gin (rapper)[edit]

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

Non notable musician. unreliable sources. Some are interviews, not secondary sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Ceethekreator (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accordng to WP:SINGER this article has reliable sources in the form of various interviews for magazines and websites. As well as a review of the artist's released album, singles and video clips. As for all other criteria, Gin is a beginner artist (as a rapper) who has no awards and no place on the chart yet, but there is one released album, singles and video clips, as well as independent interviews, which sometimes is not found in other articles about artists. With all due respect. Felix Montana (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews of the sort that are the references here do not show notability, for the subject can say essentially what he pleases, therefore he fails WP:MUSICBIO. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly fails GNG and no indication of meeting any critieria of WP:NMUSICIAN. @Felix Montana:, if she is a "beginner artist", then it is simply WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia is not in the business of creating coverage. Triptothecottage (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to assessment by Felix Montana, RS are lacking. 16 of the 25 references are from urbanvault and hiphop4real, websites that solicit content on the promise of promotion [18]. VoyageLA is a user submitted site: [19]. (Considering this subject is a self-identified veteran of the music promotion industry, it is no surprise she knows where to go to "create" coverage.) Other sources are blogs and user downloads. The only one that seemingly passes independent muster is Infusion [20], but this particular coverage is meager and promotional, and simply not enough to merit encyclopedic importance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. I couldn't find any reliable sources on Google.Ahmedelcunbal (talk) 16:26, 2 July 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Berkay Dabanlı[edit]

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

Never appears to have played for a Tier 1 team, although he did play for a team which had been a Tier 1 team, and had been signed by a Tier 1 team. IMO, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. Appearances, per Soccerway, in the Bundesliga, the 3. Liga and the Süper Lig - all listed at WP:FPL. R96Skinner (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY as he has played in a WP:FPL (this is stated in the prose of the article..) S.A. Julio (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. The references clearly indicate that he meets WPFOOTY... Kante4 (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Meets NFOOTY#2. SK per point 3, the nom statement is erroneous. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played for multiple full-professional teams in fully-professional leagues, including in Tier 1 for Eskişehirspor before it was relegated. Perhaps User:Arthur Rubin can withdraw this? Nfitz (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I missed the Süper Lig reference. All links to German leagues were tier 2 or 3, and all links to German teams were probably to teams which were in tier 2 or 3 at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tier 1 is not a requirement, the corresponding guideline at NFOOTY states that 2. Bundesliga is also fully professional and thus meets point 2 of NFOOTY. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, even the 3. Liga in Germany is fully professional. You might want to read the notability guideline and FPL (both linked above) again, Arthur... Kante4 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 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.