Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 June	4 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela St. John[edit]

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

Subject categorically fails to meet WP:COMPOSER, the criteria in the 'Others' section, and WP:GNG. I probably should've used a PROD, but I figured I'd err on the side of caution and give it a fair shake here in case I inexplicably missed something. TheTechnician27 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This composer unfortunately does not appear to meet WP:COMPOSER or the WP:GNG; I could not find any coverage of her in independent reliable sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The single provided source in the article is just a mention of the subject as one of a list of composers whose works were performed at a concert. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, article is poorly sourced. Alex-h (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any composed music by this supposed author. scope_creep^Talk 12:38, 10 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. The consensus is to delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Miles McCarter[edit]

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

Author for whom I could find no evidence of meeting WP:NAUTHOR or GNG. Current sources are either not RS, not independent, or not offering significant coverage of her. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely, undoubtedly fails WP:NAUTHOR, and three online articles from local news outlets does not a notable subject make. Edit: My stance on this matter remains the same after the article's update; please see my comment below for elaboration. Edit 2: Keeping up with this is getting out-of-hand, as the article at this point is WP:CITEKILL, making individually addressing the citations like addressing Gish gallop; the subject is still not notable, and throwing absurd amounts of references that fail to satisfy the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR does not change that. See also: WP:NOTEBOMB, and especially WP:BOMBARD. TheTechnician27 (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page with help from another webpage that I found out was originally sourced from a deleted Wikipedia page but I found notable sources that back up the comments. I asked if I needed to put this in sandbox to work on and was told it could stay up as long as I wasn’t using multiple accounts. This writer has been cited in a number of postfeminist articles and I found out referred to in reference to her writing in mental illness and infertility. I think that her contributions make that notable, I’m researching postfeminism in relationship to trans and disability issues and I was introduced to this author’s work on infertility in terms of disability through the Rhetoric Research Network. I think that’s important for other people who share this interest. - Jenn Morris Jennmorris1 (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jennmorris1: What are the reliable sources which discuss her? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jennmorris1: So you made a large addition of sources to the article. The article is definitely improved. Thanks for that. I am not, however, seeing notability. The only source that gives me pause is the Mount Holyoke bibliography - but there's a certain amount of an attempt to be comprehensive rather than selective there and it's certainly not significant coverage. Other sources are by McCarter herself or otherwise not RS. The best of this lot is the Daily Journal but that looks to be too small of a newspaper to impute notability. But I do have a much better understanding of why you found her notable even if I don't agree so thanks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jenmorris1: (Apologies for the wall of text): Your goals are admirable, and it seems you're somewhat new to Wikipedia, which I know first-hand can be daunting (and maaaaybe a bit abstruse if I'm being honest). To explain it with hopefully little jargon, while there is some room for subjectivity, a subject for an article is required to be notable by Wikipedia's guidelines. Ultimately, Wikipedia's mission is to be an encyclopedia, and that means drawing a line, as not to become an indiscriminate repository of information. There are specific notability guidelines for different cases (for example when dealing with astronomical objects, geographical features, creatives, academics, etc.), and there's also what's known as the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) that functions as a catch-all; in this case, WP:NAUTHOR is the relevant notability guideline. I don't think it's contentious to say that McCarter fails to meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NAUTHOR, but that's not necessarily where the discussion ends. Per the GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." To remove some ambiguity, the terms in that statement are defined more specifically (see GNG, linked above). While my argument above was for the original article, I'm still in agreement with @Barkeep49: about this subject's lack of notability, and hence I still vote Delete. For starters, as they are unequivocally not independent, McCarter's articles in the HuffPost do not constitute or contribute to notability. You also added to the article: "Her writing and research on mental illness and postfeminism is referenced in a number of academic and non-academic sources", followed by two sources making passing reference to McCarter; passing references again do not constitute or contribute to notability. This article and this article from local online news outlets are about a TV show, not about McCarter. And then we're back to where we were when I made that comment above: three articles from local online news outlets (seen here, here, and here) does not a notable subject make. As an aside, you note that you've seen other articles with fewer references. There are two factors at play here: the first is that quality is almost entirely superior to quantity for notability as far as references go; the second is that those articles you've seen may also not be notable – with almost 6 million articles on the English Wikipedia alone, things slip through the cracks. TheTechnician27 (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I think perhaps my opinion on the notability comes fr my seeing references to her work in various websites, podcasts, and academic articles I’ve read that mention her, I could work on finding more but I see Wikipedia articles with a lot less references! The STL Dispatch article mentions her community work and I’ve seen reference to it in Facebook posts, websites that aren’t “reliable” but do make it clear it has meaning to the residents there. Plus the Southeast Missourian isn’t small or local newspaper. I think the problem I’m having is explaining the notability of someone who is has contributed to my (albeit narrow) narrow field of disability studies and postfeminist thought. I noticed there is a list of Huffington Post contributors, would she be relevant there?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmorris1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Draftify~~ - This article (and our searches) have not turned up enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG, but as we have a relatively new, yet determined editor, who I'm taking at their word User talk:Jennmorris1 does not have a WP:COI, and who initially wanted to work on the article in their sandbox, I recommend this article get moved to draft space and worked on there. It will give @Jennmorris1: time to learn more about WP:GNG vs. WP:NOTEBOMB, so they can research and include WP:SIGCOV, (or perhaps come to realize the threshold is not met, and dedicate their efforts to another individual/organization/etc. meeting the notability standard for a Wikipedia article) and going that route will provide a structured review process before the article is returned to main space. Orville1974 (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be stressed that this new editor is already ostensibly knowledgeable about this niche field of study, yet a clearly almost exhaustive search coupled with Barkeep49's and my additional efforts have turned up almost nothing. Per WP:DRAFTIFY: "As part of the review of new pages, an unreviewed page may be moved to draft if: 1) the topic has some potential merit, and 2) the article does not meet the required standard, and 3) there is no evidence of active improvement. 4) or when the author clearly has a conflict of interest." Herein lies the problem: only 2) here is met through 2d: "The page is a recent creation by an inexperienced editor". 3) is not met, because 3a) this user is actively working on it, and 3b) there is an assertion being made that this article belongs on the mainspace. More importantly, because of what I noted before, 1) is not met because the subject is not plausibly notable. I want to specifically quote WP:DRAFTIFY's expansion on 1): "Has some merit -- 1a. for example, the topic is plausibly notable (if not, it should be speedy-deleted under A7 or nominated at AfD; do not draftify junk)." I reassert that the editor of this article carried out a near-exhaustive search in the WP:BOMBARDMENT, which combined with two other editors seeking out information on the subject effectively confirms this lack of plausible notability. TheTechnician27 (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from article space for sure. Unfortunately, the subject comprehensively fails both WP:GNG and the alternate criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. All of her books are self-published by her own press, Fat Daddy's Farm [1], [2]. Observe the results from WorldCat. None of them have been reviewed by mainstream publications. Wading through the extensive citation bombing reveals coverage of the subject herself only in unreliable/non-notable/self-published sources, sources authored by the subject herself, passing mentions, news from her college, or extremely local coverage, e.g. a piece in the "Community" section of the Southeast Missourian and one in the "Local" section of an even more local newspaper, Daily Journal. Possibly draftify per Orville1974, but I cannot see that draft ever being accepted with the current coverage. Voceditenore (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've both convinced me (along with my own determined search to find something worthy of being deemed as a WP:RS. Moving the article to draft would just delay the inevitable. I've changed my recommendation to delete. Orville1974 (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the heading of the "Books" section is somewhat exaggerated. Both A Small Book of Wisdom and Earthquakes are only 24 pages long, have no ISBN numbers and are only published as free Kindle editions. The 130 page novella What Moves Her is likewise available for free on Kindle. McCarter is the editor, not the author, of the anthology Joy, Interrupted. Her short memoir Insanity: A Love Story does get c.120 words devoted to it in the "Resources" section of Living with Bipolar Disorder: A Handbook for Patients and Their Families published by McFarland (currently used as a reference), but that simply isn't enough. That book was (self)published 10 years ago, and if it had made any kind of impact, lasting or otherwise, there should be multiple sources like that one. There aren't. Voceditenore (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom and the reasoning of User:TheTechnician27. Even if reliable and independent a source can be perfectly alright for content but fail to advance notability. Mentioning that other stuff exists is often repeated on Wikipedia, because it may be true, but is usually never a good argument at AFD. Silence does not mean there are not issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The great majority of references are to content the subject of the article has written rather than to content about her. As noted above, books are self-published. David notMD (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jennmorris1, TheTechician explains a lot of my thinking above. But I will address one element they did not. Wikipedia has a hard time in thinking through notability of people in smaller fields. This is because drawing the distinction between small and niche is hard. Notable in a small field is probably enyclopedic. Notable in a niche field is probably not. In both these cases finding reliable sources to establish this notability is extremely challenging and because of our reliance on such sources we probably do not have coverage of some people who are as least as notable as certain Children's authors (to pick my own editing area) for whom we can and do have articles. In this case, there are certainly RS around disability studies and postfeminist thought and so someone who is notable for their intersection should have some significant coverage from those RS. In this case the coverage is more passing than significant. I hope that's helpful and that you do stick around Wikipedia despite what must be a frustrating experience here as there are likely to be some existing articles which could benefit from your expertise and editorial attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just saw this article is up for deletion and I appreciate the in depth discussion and recognize both the reasons for and against deleting it. I just want to say I have no objection to it being deleted if it doesn’t meet any of the standards. I’m not sure what draftify it means and @jenmorris seems to be saying she needs it for some class related and I saw a good suggestion to make a copy offline, but also maybe show this discussion? The issue of what is notable is an interesting rhetorical discussion in itself, what establishes ethos - which clearly self-published works lacks in this particular context, self-promotion being a major limitation to self-publishing, that notability can’t be established by off line or non-mainstream sources (academic conferences/smaller journals are woefully underrepresented online, often with broken links and aren’t maintained). As time goes by, google evolves and links go by the wayside. I’ve seen things I’ve researched that clearly had a presence 10 years ago not be on the web even though they are still discussed and cited off line! But I guess that’s one of the special considerations, Wikipedia isn’t a lexicon or encyclopedia of life, but of what is verifiable online. I think this exercise in debate does show the rhetorical considerations of notability, which is a good lesson itself to someone in that field. Like suggested, perhaps it will inspire further discussion of ethos and notability that can be of future use to @jenmorris and anyone else who is concerned - thanks @lissahoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lissahoop (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the chance that "links go by the wayside" would be a good reason to archive them. Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 I agree with you. But that is a challenge when links that could establish reliability aren’t archived. I know that is one of the reasons in the study of history that things are uncovered - information that doesn’t seem notable or relevant at a certain time is then important later on when it’s uncovered in research. What is obscure for one period can be highly important for a later one. (And can also fall out of fashion). But I imagine it’s not the purpose of Wikipedia to predict what information will be relevant and so you can’t archive everything in anticipation that it might. I think the wikipedia definition of what is considered for notable - part of which is to be enduring - is interesting. I’m not sure that knowledge or information is always enduring and what endures is often the result of a paradigm that is particular to a time period, matrix of power, and belief systems. And when that paradigm shifts, what endures can change. For example, women voices in prior centuries are being uncovered because of paradigm shifts valuing them in ways they weren’t before. They weren’t deemed notable or enduring. Anyway that’s a tangent. I do wonder if there is a way to go back to earlier periods of time of the World Wide Web to see those links that weren’t archived. Like a snapshot in time. Thanks for food for thought. Jennmorris1 (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)jennmorris1[reply]

I’ve been reading the Wikipedia article on notability and have a clearer understanding. What’s frustrating is when links that establish notability are no longer there in a google search (even google scholar or google books aren’t permanent). It’s also frustrating when relevant links get pushed down so that researching a subject can be misleading or too time consuming. You almost have to know what you are looking for to find it. When I started out on the internet, Yahoo! categorized information and that provided an organization that was helpful for research. But now google or other search engines are like a mass of information with no rhyme or reason. The google algorithm often prioritizes information in a way that can be hard to conduct research. It would be nice if something like the that type of Yahoo! directory still existed. I think then there could be an enduring categorized archive that didn’t necessarily have to meet the notable standards of Wikipedia. An organized capsule of information. Lissahoop (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Lissahoop[reply]

Lissahoop and Jennmorris1, just a quick answer to a couple of your points, as deletion discussions are meant to remain tightly focused and not to veer off into general philosophical issues about Wikipedia, academia, search engines etc.

1. There is a way to look back into many, many sites/web pages which are no longer online, and to preserve the ones which are. I suggest you read Wayback Machine for an introduction, if you are not already familiar with it. Wikipedia uses it quite extensively for restoring "lost" references.

2. Journals or books which are offline /behind a paywall are acceptable as references, provided the reference has complete bibliographic information and the book or journal itself is considered a reliable source. However, to establish the notability of a subject, those sources must discuss the subject in significant depth, not simply a passing mention of him or her or listing in a bibliography.

3. This deletion discussion will be preserved here. All AfD discussions are preserved whether or not the actual article is deleted or sent to draft space ("draftified"). If you would like to continue this general discussion you've both started, I suggest you use Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Melissa Miles McCarter. I would be happy to continue it with you there.

Voceditenore (talk) 07:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPEEDY delete . A series of experienced editors have taken a close look, including me, and it is a WP:SNOW delete. It is clear that this memoirist who writes about her struggles with mental illness is finding this process stressful. I suggest that because we all with her to have a calm and productive life, we WP:SPEEDY close this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of record, there is no evidence that this is a stressful process to anyone involved and it’s a weird presumption that just because a person has written about past experiences with bipolar disorder that they would find this process stressful. If this needs to be deleted based on consensus and reasonable argument, that’s fine. But please don’t do it under the guise that further discussion would somehow cause stress. In my opinion, this has been a very interesting discussion that revealed the inner workings of Wikipedia. Hopefully no one who has commented here has found it stressful or an impediment to a calm or productive life. I know this is off topic but I thought it was important to address the concern that a polite and interesting discussion would lead anyone, whether having written about personal experiences, to be stressed out so it would interfere with his or her private life. And maybe since this discussion will be preserved, it will be useful record to help others understand in detail the reasoning behind various Wikipedia guidelines and intents. Lissahoop (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Lissahoop[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WorldCat only lists one self-published book by her, held in two libraries; the other four things on the list of "books" in this article are either non-books or even more obscure than that. More to the point, I didn't find any published independent reviews of any of them. So WP:AUTHOR seems out of reach and the article doesn't present any case for any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidence of notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Very very obscure. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:11, 10 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) 01:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zonayed Saki[edit]

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

Candidate for a mayoral position does not meet WP:NPOL, coverage available online seems to all be routine election coverage. I was unable to search in relevant languages other than English, so Bengali speakers' input would be appreciated. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither makes nor sources any credible claim that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected mayoral candidates are not notable unless there is something else about them that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL - unsuccessful run for mayor. And fails WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 19:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. fail passes WP:NPOL- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:48, 8 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) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It Happened 'That Night'[edit]

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

Another episode in a franchise series. Episode 48. How is this notable enough for an article. I'm not seeing the WP:RS that justifies this... --David Tornheim (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see a similar article from same series I simultaneously submitted for deletition: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/In_the_Eye_Abides_the_Heart --David Tornheim (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep I don't like it isn't an appropriate deletion rationale. Try again, and be more specific about why you want this deleted. Not seeing any RS issues with this article at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf: Not seeing any RS issues. Of the the 3 references in the article, which do you think meet the notability requirements? Looks like very trivial coverage to me insufficient to justify an article. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'll just link to the other episode's nomination thread, because upon looking for sources to attest to this subject's notability, I noticed my rationale there can be copied practically verbatim to be applied here, with the sole exception that I also found a press release for this one, which also doesn't advance notability. Comment: Upon further inspection of the Pretty Little Liars category, there are numerous standalone articles for characters and episodes from the series that ostensibly warrant their own article just as much as if not less than these two episodes (note: this is not meant to be WP:WAX, so much as it is a calling out of those articles). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks notability per TheTechnician27's rationale. Large amount of unsourced content raises concerns of original research. I looked at several episodes and find that many have the same issues with sourcing that includes an unsourced "Plot" section. I also have an issue with the need or want to inundate Wikipedia with the same two "External links" advertising IMDb and TV.com on every article, regardless that they not actually contain important "further research", needed and otherwise unavailable television credits, a further understanding of the subject that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, or possibly anything beyond just being links that promote the sites. Otr500 (talk) 13:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable in its own right. Sources not at all enough. —NCP^Talk 19:24, 7 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) 01:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Eye Abides the Heart[edit]

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

Do we really need an article on a single episode of Pretty Little Liars. I can't believe this is notable. I am not seeing it in the WP:RS cited. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see a similar article from same series I simultaneously submitted for deletition: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It_Happened_'That_Night' --David Tornheim (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep I don't like it isn't an appropriate deletion rationale. Try again, and be more specific about why you want this deleted. Not seeing any RS issues with this article at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrschimpf:Not seeing any RS issues with this article at all. You are kidding, right? So do you think these citations that in the article are high quality WP:RS sufficient for inline citations and/or notability:

https://www.facebook.com/littleliars/ -- Facbook for Little Liars
1st Twitter post
2nd Twitter post
Instagram #1
Instagram #2
3rd Twitter post
Soundtrack on Tunefeed

That is half of the citations for the article. I'm very much looking forward to hearing why you think these are high quality reliable sources. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Tornheim It's worth noting that this argument isn't the strongest (see: WP:NEXIST), but I'm erring on the side of your nomination, because I can find very little outside of the citations that you mentioned. I have found sources that discuss this particular episode, but they're all episode recaps that frankly don't seem to me to establish notability, that is they only provide WP:PLOT and don't actually present any reason why the episode should be considered notable. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume your vote is delete? Could you take a look another similar article I simultaneously voted for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/It_Happened_'That_Night'. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just getting to that. Of course it needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and I would be frankly dumbstruck if such a noteworthy, universally acclaimed episode weren't up there with the likes of "Ozymandias", "The Contest", "The Nightman Cometh", and "The Inner Light". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Current sources are completely bereft of notability per WP:GNG. This isn't necessarily a problem of notability on its own (see: WP:NEXIST), but effectively the only sources I can find outside of the existing ones are episode recaps written by fans of the show for online magazines. Because they're simple plot recaps, they don't actually say anything about the notability of the episode, and thus I can find essentially nothing that even marginally advances this subject's notability. This article seems more suited to the Pretty Little Liars Wikia. See also: WP:PLOT. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable episode. Tweeter or Instagram is certainly not even in the same universe as high quality. These two, facebook and Pretty Little Liars.com. are primary sources, do not advance notability, and they account for over 45% of the listed references. In checking the rest there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish any notability. The entire plot section is unsourced that brings up concerns of original research. Otr500 (talk) 06:13, 5 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) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olawoyin Olasunkanmi[edit]

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

no clear evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No real basis for notability. Having photographed some famous people does not make him notable himself. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable per WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE, but Comment: I'm legitimately kind of sad that he's not; he seems like a really genuine guy with a great passion and a snazzy suit to boot. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both working sources are interviews (or press releases masquerading as interviews). Nothing that talks about him in an authoritative way from a RS. Searches produce nothing of note. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:32, 7 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Malkawi[edit]

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

Per WP:PROF, no Notability nor (awards, achievements, etc), the article is too inflated article and filled with a lot of useless personal information and filled with a lot of references (don't talking about him) to make the article look like a high notability person (WP:MASK), we delete this article in Arabic Wikipedia (Per A7). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be important to note that this article was written in large part by one person with an ostensible conflict of interest. Concern has also been voiced about two other related articles: T.C. Chan Center for Building Simulation and Energy Studies and QSAS (see: this talk page), both of which, intentionally or not, ostensibly suffer from WP:MASK and may need to be looked into for nomination here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Okay, this one may seem contentious, so let's start with something basic: whether intentional or not, I agree with nominator's assertion of WP:MASK; the article is bloated to an unreasonable degree, and statements will frequently have several (in this case, up to seven) citations apiece. In terms of notability, the subject fails to satisfy any of the 9 criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, although that's not necessarily the end of the discussion. WP:NACADEMIC defers to WP:BIO if its criteria aren't met, though I couldn't find anything in or outside of those 91 citations (complete overkill) that satisfies this; the ones I looked at – many from this article and a few not – either include Malkawi tengentially, don't even mention Malkawi, are press releases, are from non-notable sources, are self-authored, etc., none of which advance notability. Sifting through citations like this feels like Gish gallop, insofar as there are so many references that fail to establish notability that there's no way I could reasonably read through and address all of them. Comment: If kept, this article is in serious need of pruning, both for its prose and its citations. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:47, 6 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Kyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. No awards or media coverage to speak of. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colter Johnson[edit]

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

Recently created autobiography fails WP:FILMMAKER. Orville1974 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized an earlier incarnation of this article was deleted through the AfD process already. Orville1974 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I put a speedy on this before but for some reason they moved it to a draft instead of deleting it. With that said-Delete-not notable. Wgolf (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable under WP:DIRECTOR or WP:GNG. The shameless, sloppy self-promotion is icing on the cake. TheTechnician27 (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not anymore notable since the first AfD. While notablity cannot be inherited perhaps a redirect to his father would be an AtD? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTOR. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:43, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyan Laslett O'Brien[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To reinforce nom, I could find nothing even arguably contributing toward their notability per WP:COMPOSER or WP:BASIC. Ostensible COI editing doesn't help matters. Comment: It's somewhat interesting that this article, if deleted here, would be removed just days before its 10th birthday; it's curious how stuff like this slips through the cracks. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, and falls short of the specific guideline (WP:COMPOSER). RetiredDuke (talk) 20:26, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jane Hamilton[edit]

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

Previously kept because of much laxer standards a decade ago. Fails GNG and ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per my analysis at the second AFD. Flimsy sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not come even close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the depreciated PORNBIO WP guidelines. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG, the sources are not controllabile, much of the article contains trivial information. Westmanurbe (talk) 22:23, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aswar Rahman[edit]

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

It cites three substantive articles about his abortive long-shot run for mayor of Minneapolis.[3][4][5] WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article."

It has been tagged for notability for two years, and when an IP tried to remove the tag, a third editor restored it with the summary, "needs significant secondary coverage outside mayoral race to establish notability, see WP:NPOL." That guideline, perhaps recognizing that many local candidates receive some degree of attention in the press, sets the bar for them at "major local political figure". In practice, losing municipal candidates are usually considered not notable (see WP:POLOUTCOMES), but each should be discussed on their own merits.

He is also a filmmaker, but has made no notable films. The only coverage is an interview, him talking about his work and his organization, Cineapolis.[6] After the mayor's race he received a light dusting of coverage for acting in the 4-episode cable reality series Welcome to Waverly.[7][8][9]

DiderotTerra17 took several days to create this article. Some editors are loathe to delete another's hard work, but it should be noted that their original user name was Aswar314, suggesting that this is either an autobiography or ghost written by his campaign staff, so their effort may not have had Wikipedia's best interests at heart. I don't see what he has accomplished that would be encyclopedia worthy. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — notability as a politician comes from holding office, not running for it and losing or withdrawing. Some degree of local coverage of mayoral elections is simply expected to always exist, further, so such coverage does not automatically make a candidate special on "just because media coverage exists" grounds — if that were how it worked, then every candidate in every election would always be special, and NPOL would mean absolutely nothing anymore. Rather, to qualify for an article it would be necessary to properly demonstrate his preexisting notability as a filmmaker — but that's not what this does, as his work as a filmmaker is referenced entirely to primary sources rather than notability-supporting reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable mayoral candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDoes not meet WP:NPOL , lack enough coverage to pass an stand alone article. Shringhringshring^📞 16:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail passes WP:NPOL --MA Javadi (talk) 18:34, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenteal[edit]

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

Kept during the bad bad days of PORNBIO but this falls way short of ENT and GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. I'm amazed this article lasted this long, and I used to subscribe to the rationale behind WP:PORNBIO. This would not have passed any version of the PORNBIO since April 2009. It survived the previous AfD mainly through a PORNBIO criterion dropped in 2007. The sources are crap. Biographical information is sourced from IAFD, IMDb and social media. Porn trade press consists of entries in lists of performers, press releases and interviews. No strong claim of passing WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER. (WP:PORNBIO redirects there.) It puts forth a very reasonable set of guidelines for the question of "who cares about this article?" (Please note that in this case, "Who cares...?" isn't a rhetorical question that would mean "no one cares." Rather, it is a genuine question, significant to an encyclopedia.) This person is very much run-of-the-mill. 5.78.105.24 (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that a sub-standard article like this that meets no reasonable notability criteria has existed on Wikipedia for well over a decade gives the project a major black eye. While not quite true any more, it is articles like this that lead to the lament of October 2012, which is that Wikipedia had more articles on pornographic film actresses than on women poets or women journalists, or women lawyers. While some of the lament of October 2012 focuses on issues beyond Wikipedia, having this article is clearly a sign of a problem on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear friend, if Wikipedia had more articles on pornographic film actresses than on women poets or women journalists, or women lawyers, or women biologists, and so on, the problem would rely not in the quality of articles about adult actresses, but in the fact that articles about women poets, or women journalists are too few... Westmanurbe (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Total lack of notability Westmanurbe (talk) 22:49, 9 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 speedy keep. Clearly this was a mistaken nomination and therefore withdrawn. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Marie Abato[edit]

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

Single.Source not enough for GNG and fails ENT. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - You mean two different sources? The Los Angeles Times and Los Angeles Daily News (which the Chicago Tribune republished. Plus [10][11] It's too bad that linkrot exists and we can expand on whatever happened to that campaign. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence that there were more than one source writing about her. [12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking. The only biographical information in the second source, which is very short is "Ryder, whose real name is Lisa Maria Abata, had starred in more than 200 triple-X movies before forming the commission." That's clearly not enough to count the source towards notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Third source is .also short as is mostly quotations so.not independant. Frankly all the coverage is her foundation and that's probably where any article should be. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly Ryder. "Under her legal name, Lisa Marie Abato," "Ryder" was one of the best-known anti-porn activists in the U.S. Abato and her activities were covered in major media outlets like the Chicago Tribune[13] and the Los Angeles Times[14], commented on in The New York Times[15], discussed in the State Bar of California's official journal [16], and cited in social science books [17]. Newsbank search also turns up coverage in, inter alia, the San Francisco Examiner, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Washington Times, the Boston Herald, the Tampa Tribune, the Sacramento Bee and others. Not notable as a porn performer, but clears the GNG by a significant margin." The consensus at that AFD to keep, rename, and redirect was sound. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the significant secondary source coverage in major news found by Hullaballoo. Subject is a significant anti-porn activist. As a former actress in adult film the subject's notability is not from that period in life. The diminished PORNBIO policy does not apply here Lubbad85 (☎) 19:05, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Skye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP1E and a case that never came to.court is no basis to write a BLP. Previous AFD cites pornbio but its now gone and otherwise fails ANY and ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Applied appropriately, BLP1E should screen out bios like this. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeping this article was a really bad decision that put Wikipedia on the path of having way too many articles on those involved with pornography. It is time to reverse that horrid decision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm finding no evidence of notability; no WP:SIGCOV sources, just the WP:BLP1E. – Levivich 04:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references add to Bubba the Love Sponge notability, with Skye to be mentioned perhaps somewhere there. Not enough content to make her notable outside of the lawsuit.Bogger (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Trillfendi (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Total lack of notability Westmanurbe (talk) 22:27, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Richter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails ENT and GNG. Awards without sources no longer cut the mustard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't spot anything relevant via Google Books or News; Scholar turns up one paper which discusses this person among others, which is this one. -sche (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another clear failure of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Evident lack of notability Westmanurbe (talk) 20:56, 9 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) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Parent Support[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, and no references providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources, not press releases or mere announcements DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I searched for this organisation and could only find brief mentions, not enough to provide WP:ORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 4 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 02:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Snakes (psychobilly band)[edit]

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

Article is probably an attempted promotion and has already been tagged for a conflict of interest, having been created by one the band members. Note the attempted cite bombing to social media photos, self-created websites, and basic concert announcements. Those are all that can be found on the band, with a search only revealing more of the same routine listings and self-promotions in social media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at this point I have to agree with nominator. I am not seeing anything that is notable. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~This could be a GIGO problem. If they are called "The Meteors" that might be a better search term.~~ 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not also known as the Meteors, as the third paragraph of the Biography section says they played WITH the Meteors. See also File:The Snakes and The Meteors.jpg. You made this change to the article with no verification. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:58, 6 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) 00:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Black (EP)[edit]

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

No claim of importance, no coverage in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NALBUM Hugsyrup (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article makes no assertion that this would pass WP:NMUSIC, and I can't find anything beyond passing mentions in any RS so it doesn't pass on WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:50, 9 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. Transwiki to wiktionary should be requested at WP:REFUND; the consensus here seems to be that this topic doesn't have enough "substance" to make a wiki article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Day (Nepal)[edit]

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

The article reads like a list of multiple so-called black days that are observed as national/widely observed annual commemorative events. Most of them are just one-off events that were described as such in some news reporting/blogs. Some that were major events are still not shown to be periodic events but a single event/point-making, in the references, but are presented in a misleading way in the article. For example; the disambiguation page that lists this page mentions only the anniversary of promulgation of the constitution(and not half a dozen other black days mentioned in the article); yet the sources cited here report of only the very day of promulgation and no anniversaries thereafter. I don't see any way that it's good enough for wikipedia, yet I can not categorise it as anything. I don't even know what issues to raise. Would editors please look at the content and the references and then discuss this one? Best I can say is, that the article (as it reads and in using common sense) fails verification and as such notability, maybe? It's just weird nonsense to me. Thank you! Usedtobecool (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please pay attention to the reliability/credibility of the sources cited. Usedtobecool (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is that this should not be deleted. I find it credible that there can be multiple "black days" in Nepal, and a brief perusal of the sources shows the language "black day" applied to multiple tragic events. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's common practice to call "Black day" when something one dislikes happens, at least in South Asia (just google black day news). One group can call a "Black day".That's not the same as a country observing a black day, like an anniversary. And a news report can characterise a tragedy as a black day. That's just a figure of speech. "Black day" is a common phrase of protest/tragedy in South Asia (maybe elsewhere too?). But that's not what this article is about. Black day, here, is akin to Independence day, as far as I can tell. Usedtobecool (talk) 18:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These appear to be events described as "black day"s. These are not officially recognized, recurring occurrences - no black days in Public holidays in Nepal. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This strikes me as being more appropriate for wiktionary. From reading a batch of articles it seems that during some protests, people have carried small black flags [ref.9] or black armbands, and called for black-outs for an hour. So I think it means something distinct from the English-language usage. It may be a colloquialism but news stories use the term as a proper noun that doesn't require elaboration.

The other use is the same as everywhere else in the world — an allusion to a very bad day — and seems to be used in the Nepalese wiki for a recent, terrible earthquake. A search through ne.wiki for "कालो दिन" came up with three results including also WWI and in the works of a poet. Given potential language issues, and because of WP:NOTDIC, I don't think it should have a page here but I do think it should have representation within the wiki system. Perhaps some of the page's contents related to the 2015 constitution should be added to that page as there seems to be news coverage of the protests although I didn't see an in-depth description of the issues (but I wasn't looking for one). ogenstein (talk) 03:30, 4 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game show (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary DAB page. First two entries are not titled Game show, they are a single word. Second two just start with "Game Show" and there is no evidence that they are referred to just as 'game show.' DAB pages are not meant to be a collection of articles which start with a phrase. As such, none of the entries are proper and the DAB pages is unneeded. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep, or possibly weak move to Gameshow (disambiguation)~~. Keep Your concerns about the final two entries are justified, but the first, inline, entry on game shows is legitimate, and there is no other disambiguation page for the first two bulleted, single word entries. There should probably be some page to disambiguate Gameshow (magazine), Gameshow (album), and the general concept of a Game show. I am only voting weak keep however, since it would also be acceptable to use these as hatnotes. MarginalCost (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to full keep after Clarityfiend's changes. MarginalCost (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've deleted one and added one. It's plausible for Game Show Network to be shortened to Game Show, and there are three other legit entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

er... where do you get the idea that it’s possible someone would shorten the game show network to game show? It doesn’t make any logical sense to do so. Further you don’t address why it wouldn’t make more sense to move the page to Gameshow ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CW Television Network, shortened to The CW; Soul of the South Network, shortened to Soul of the South in this Variety article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Per WP:DABLINK usage guidelines, it is '…Preferable not to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term.' The articles named here are distinct enough that they would not be confused. Two asides: First, if the page was necessary then it would be fine if it contained both 'game show' and 'gameshow' as per WP:DABCOMBINE which provides the example of 'eagle nest' and 'eaglenest' (and more); Second, the 'network' should be removed, per WP:PARTIAL. Otherwise, you'd need multiple DAB pages just for entries such as 'school' or 'book', but those pages are very limited. Finally, the general concept of 'game show' should be addressed on the 'game show' page, not a disambiguation page. ogenstein (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a useful page, and it is not unreasonable to disambiguate "Game show" and "Gameshow" together (especially when Gameshow redirects to Game show). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what Shhhnotsoloud is saying. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid dab page. Too many entries to cover using hatnotes. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 10 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 a procedural close. The article has been moved to Draft space so there is nothing now to discuss. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha dishman[edit]

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

Per WP:N. No major wins in any significant paddler races. Notability established comes from a local news story about rescuing dog. Don't think there is enough here to establish notability for her own WP:BLP Comatmebro (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 3 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. Per Randykitty, and in application of WP:BLP, unsourced BLP articles cannot be retained. Sandstein 16:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kendré Berry[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His coverage (press etc) is limited to some trivial podcasts. Deep significant secondary sources are lacking. But he has been in notable productions, so he seems to meet the first rule of WP:ENT. Seems to meet WP:CCSI#ACTOR. HM Wilburt (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of the reoccurring roles he has played in the cited notable productions (Six Feet Under, Girlfriends, Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide) have been important enough to meet WP:ENT "significant roles" criteria. On Girlfriends, for example, he appears in the last two seasons as the teenage child of a main character, but his presence in the show is intermittent. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article hasn't any sources.--PATH SLOPU 03:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The single "keep" !vote sounds more like a delete rationale. The article is basically unsourced, if no in-depth sources establishing notability can be found, the article will be deleted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, he has indeed appeared in many re-occuring roles on series TV, but none of them are important enough to meet the "significant" standard necessary for WP:ENT. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:01, 7 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) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Zero independent sources in the article, and I'm unable to find any independent Reliable Sources on Google. This "national media firm" is some guy who graduated from college and put up a pair of National Digital Newspapers (aka websites) in 2017. While his web and promotional skills are apparent, Notability can only be conferred by significant coverage of a topic by multiple independent reliable sources. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 100% agreed on all counts. Furthermore, related articles Kathmandu Tribune, the digital paper output by the company, and Arun Budhathoki, the founder of both, all deserve deletion. I don't think there should be any controversy on any of them. This is obviously one guy trying his damndest to publicise himself via wikipedia. Arun Budhathoki should be deleted as per WP:PROMOTION. Arun Budhathoki cites a list of pages, that attribute authorship to the subject and none that discuss the subject itself. So, it fails WP:GNG miserably short of synthesis which would be WP:OR. I bring these up only because I have previously encountered a similar network of wiki articles and corresponding sources which as a whole would make the case quite clear and yet, it becomes harder than it should be when each article is taken one at a time. Because, well, we have "national media" like "Kathmandu Tribune" where friends can write puff pieces about each other and exchange favours writing wikipedia articles about each other citing these same "credible media sources", and so on. If editors would look in on all three of these articles, and provide their feedback, I/we could proceed with putting the other two up for discussion as well. Usedtobecool ^TALK

BTW, Kathmandu Tribune and Nepal Tribune Media were both created by User:Ozar77 and I haven't looked in detail into their contributions. But, Arun Budhathoki was written by User:Dansong22 which is signed 'ArunBudhathoki' on the userpage which seems to make the page an autobiography by a user with an undisclosed COI. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media is a registered company under Nepal Government Law and some random Nepali guy working against it against cyberlaw and not acceptable too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if legal threats of this nature count as intimidation. Also, don't blank an AfD discussion page, again. It hinders your case more than anything else you can threaten me with. Usedtobecool ^TALK 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ozar77 a company is not entitled to a Wikipedia article merely because it exists. Wikipedia has an inclusion criteria. A topic must qualify under our Notability guideline. More specifically, companies are evaluated under the NCORP subject-specific guidelines. If you want to avoid deletion of this article, you need to present a valid argument and/or evidence that Nepal Tribune Media does qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia under the NCORP guideline. Also, it is unclear what "random Nepali guy" you are referring to. I am the one who nominated the article for deletion, and I have never been within four thousand miles of Nepal. I am merely a random editor who works to ensure Wikipedia content complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I came across this article pretty much at random. Alsee (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Huh? The company is registered? I think it works that way in most countries for any company. Fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not WP:YELLOWPAGES. Orville1974 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added Nepal News Network International to the open AfD discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nepal Tribune Media is an independent media company in Nepal and I am sure administrators who respect press freedom, especially, in a communist country like Nepal would respect the need for a fair media. Editors are just abusing their rights to delete this page for no reason. No point in debating with so-called editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You do realize that saying editors are abusing their rights is not going to help right?LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27.34.68.251 You should see WP:COI and WP:Sockpuppet. Then, I ask you, do you have anything to declare? And stop pulling the Nepal card or the freedom card. See WP:What wikipedia is not.Usedtobecool ^TALK 15:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I couldn't find any coverage through either google or news searches. Even searching for the name in Nepalese generated no meaningful results. What is on the page is essentially WP:PROMO and there aren't any sources extant with which to make it otherwise. ogenstein (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. starship .paint (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 8 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. The content has been moved to Draft:Nishat Nawar Salwa. ansh 666 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishat Nawar Salwa[edit]

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

Winner of Miss World Bangladesh is probably notable. Runner up is not. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note- Nishat Nawar Salwa is enough notable for staying in wikipedia & the article is written with enough and trusted news source.
- She has a large fan base.
- She has a significant cult following.
- The person has played a major role in creating a national film.
- The person has made a widely recognized (miss world bangladesh runner up title).
- There are many model and actress of bangladesh articles are staying in wikipedia whom are not received any awards or nominations.
- He has been writing enough in the newspaper.
- All the references to the article are written about her.
- She appears in now several television show.
- She is a actress before gotten miss world award 2018.
- She and Jannatul Ferdous Oishee were gone viral and trend in social media for a long time because of the Discussion-criticism of the arrangement of the program. Nahal (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless problems with sources. The deletion rational is unconvincing. This article has 19 sources. To show the WP:GNG notability guidelines are not met, one would have to argue the sources are trivial or unreliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The keep rationale seems to be "we have many that are as bad, or even worse". DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the 19 references has the URL bracu.ac.bd/sites/default/files/registrar/exam_seat_plan/Summer-2018/ENG113.pdf - a PDF with one page about the seat plan of an English Poetry exam in 2018. Thirteen of the 19 references require fluency in the Bengali script and language. None of the 19 references offer a wikilink for the publisher. "Large fan base" and a "significant cult following" and "gone viral and trend in social media" would be compelling reasons for a delete, please suggest something else for a keep, how about a photo for the fashion queen, or is it TOOSOON? –84.46.53.249 (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, she is a notable model from Bangladesh and a rising actress . She had coverage on bangladeshi printing media. So if we want, the trivial source problem could be solved. ferdous 04:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a rising actress" has a definite meaning, it means "not yet notable as an actress."

It is claimed above she won Miss World. This is not the case. She did not win even Miss World Bangladesh. She was a runner-up. Only the winner is notable. Had she won, I would not have nominated the article for AfD.

and I agree with the i.p. editor above: "cult following" is a reason to be very careful before accepting notability. If I were closing an afd, I would completely discount any argument that includes this, because it shows no awareness of WP policy. Only policy based arguments count. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Maffeth.opiana ( talk ) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC) — Maffeth.opiana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep--Miss world Bangladesh 2018 1st runner up doesn't means enough for notable, but she is notable as an actress from Bangladesh and has no problem with her source Anupam (talk) 19:36, 02 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the "keep" !votes so far gives a policy-based rationale, instead resorting to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Unless sufficient in-depth reliable sources van be unearthed, this most likely will be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - These citations are awful regardless of how many there are. Celebrity news churn isn't notability. These are trivial mentions, nothing more, e.g. she was named runner-up, she's in a movie yet to be made, she flew to the US (and incidentally, I searched on a NY Bangladesh news site and came up with nothing). Several of the articles merely repeat the same 'news'. The Daily Sun piece looks like it came from an OCR'd copy. [19][24][22] Using ten citations to state that she is getting a role in an upcoming movie doesn't make her a notable actress, nor does using three that mention she was the runner up in a pageant make her notable. First runner-up isn't an award. A seating plan?

WP:NACTOR specifies 'multiple notable films' when she doesn't have one yet. WP:BASIC states that coverage 'must be more than trivial'. WP:HITS specifies that undue weight should not be given to matters related to popular culture, 'popularity is not notability'. And that some subjects, "…May be on 700 pages and might still not be considered 'existing' enough to show any notability, for Wikipedia's purposes." WP:TOOSOON Two sentences is not a biography. Give her a chance to actually get her career underway before you try and write it. ogenstein (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- She is notable model and actress. She has also an award. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failed beauty queen, and not notable in anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – First of all, Johnpacklambert, that's a little too harsh of a thing to say about a WP:BLP. Let's remember the article subjects are innocent victims of our deletion discussions, they don't deserve to be trashed. Coming in second place in one pageant doesn't make a person a "failed beauty queen", anyway. But I agree with JPL here (as I often do) that the article should be deleted. The keep !votes above are highly unconvincing. The number of sources doesn't matter. That she is an actress, even a popular or famous one, also doesn't matter. "Cult following" isn't automatic notability, either. Many of the keep !votes have very low edit counts and perhaps do not fully understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which I hope the closer pays attention to. The article is WP:REFBOMBed, but going through the sources, including the foreign-language ones with Google Translate, I see not one single source that would count as significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. They all seem to be passing mentions. Unless someone can demonstrate WP:THREE examples of sources that would meet BASIC, this article should be deleted. – Levivich 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I hear “runner-up” I hear “un-notable”. If you didn’t win, you didn’t win! Nothing to write about then. Trillfendi (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DGG: I think the article was important enough, since WP:GNG has not passed. That's why I want to draft this page. This article may be deleted, but i hope after the next six months or a year, it will be re-registered any others Bangladeshi contributor again because she is known as actress form Bangladesh. when released of her two Bangladeshi films, I think this article will be acceptable for notable.--Nahal (talk) 15:07, 10 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. Based on the discussion and source analyses here, it appears that the sources presented have not convinced most participants that they are adequate, mostly due to substantiality concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data Design Interactive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find video game sources: "Data Design Interactive" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unnotable defunct company commonly known for making bad games, thus making future coverage unlikely. The only real source directly concerning the studio refers to the opening of another unnotable office in the U.S.. An older discussion from 2010 opted to keep this revision for some reason, despite being almost entirely unsourced, and not at all about the article's topic. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Younghusband, Paul (2001-02-01). "A One Stop Digital Shop: Data Design Interactive and Artworld UK". Animation World Network. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
"Worst Reviewed Nintendo Console Games". IGN. 2000-10-31. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-08-14). "Cheers & Tears: The Wii's Sports of Games". IGN. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-02-11). "Action Girlz Racing Review". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Fox, Tanner (2018-08-20). "30 Crazy Bad Video Games With (Almost) 0% On Metacritic". The Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Savino, Candace (2008-01-03). "Shovelware: A cause and effect". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

Sources with quotes

Younghusband, Paul (2001-02-01). "A One Stop Digital Shop: Data Design Interactive and Artworld UK". Animation World Network. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:
For around 18 years Birmingham-based Data Design Interactive has been churning out top-notch games for some of the industry's most prestigious publishers. Working for Sony, Millennium, PSS, Psygnosis, Ocean and Infogrames on projects such as Pegasus Bridge, ROBOCOD, Rise of the Robots and Water World to name a few, Data Design has earned a reputation as one of the UK's top games developers. Their experience developing for the Spectrum, Amstrad, Amiga, Game Boy, PC, Sega Megadrive and, of course, the Playstation, put them in the perfect position to take advantage of the games industry's soaring popularity. But as we found out, the folks at Data Design have more than video games on their mind...
"Worst Reviewed Nintendo Console Games". IGN. 2000-10-31. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:
The Kidz Sports Series -- Kidz Sports: Basketball, Hockey, and International Soccer

Developer: Data Design Interactive
Publisher: Bold Games
Year: 2008
Score: 1.0

The sad thing about really terrible games is that, more often than not, they're marketed towards children. It adds insult to injury when the general consensus of the industry seems to be that children don't deserve good games. Developer Data Design Interactive made not one, but three horrendously bad sports games geared towards youngsters. The graphics looked 10 years old, the gameplay was slow, the AI acted like they didn't even know how to play the game. The motion controls were so glitchy that it was hard to actually perform any of the moves. And on top of everything, the three games were nearly identical, despite these three sports being very different.

Honorable Mention
The rest of Data Design Interactive's Library
Scores: 1.0-3.0

Okay, we don't mean this to be mean, but maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games. We've never seen a developer that spit out so many consistently awful titles in such a short time. Nearly every game we've reviewed under a 3.0 has come from this developer. That is just incredible.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-08-14). "Cheers & Tears: The Wii's Sports of Games". IGN. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:
Wrapping it up this week is, as expected, a representative from our good friends over at Data Design Interactive. You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is. For sports sims, look no further than the Kidz Sports series to find the lowest-rung, most bottom-of-the-barrel sports games possible on the Wii.
And, yes, I didn't mistype there -- it's a whole series. Basketball, Soccer. Hockey's just one of the whole big bunch. You're better off with any other hockey game ever created than this one, though, as it's just offensive with broken motion controls, dumbed-down mechanics and presentation that is literally cut-and-pasted from other Data Design products. If there are some kids in your life that you really can't stand, get them a Kidz Sports game on Wii. That'll teach 'em.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-02-11). "Action Girlz Racing Review". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:
Action Girlz Racing was brought to us at the very beginning of 2008, too, almost a harbinger of the woes to follow -- it was released by Data Design Interactive and Conspiracy Entertainment in January of last year alongside a whole slew of other top-quality products like Rig Racer 2, Classic British Motor Racing and the sensational London Taxi: Rush Hour. And, in true Data Design style, it's essentially another copy of those same games.
See, Data Design's developers made the decision to go for quantity over quality with their racing titles on Wii, and so came up with just one design -- but then gave it a half-dozen different coats of paint, in order to release it over and over as a bunch of "different" games. If you boot up any one of them, you've seen them all. And, sure enough, Action Girlz has the same menu design, control scheme and overall setup as all the rest. Its closest counterpart has to be Myth Makers: Super Kart GP, yet another effort from the same developer, released just one month earlier, that also bends this same engine toward the kart-racing subgenre.
Fox, Tanner (2018-08-20). "30 Crazy Bad Video Games With (Almost) 0% On Metacritic". The Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The Gamer is owned by Valnet, a publisher that also owns Screen Rant and Comic Book Resources, among other websites. The Gamer has editorial oversight.
The article notes:
Anubis II was one of a slew of terrible budget Wii titles developed by the now-defunct UK-based Data Design Interactive. Infamous for copying level designs wholesale from their previous titles, slapping a new coat of paint on them, and declaring them to be entirely new games, the company eventually caved in 2012 due to insolvency. Anubis II would be a relatively inoffensive, basic platformer were it not a total reskin of Ninja Breadman, Rock n’ Roll Adventures, and Trixie in Toyland—all of which were also developed by Data Design. All of these games are, apart from some visual variations, exactly the same. The funniest thing about Anubis II, however, is that there never was an original Anubis game—not that anyone would have asked for one to be made.
Savino, Candace (2008-01-03). "Shovelware: A cause and effect". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:
What you might not have noticed, though, is that a division of Destineer known as Bold Games was responsible for all six of the $20 Wii games released this week in North America.
When it comes to how and why this happened, it's a case of simple economics. Rinde was in Europe when he found out that Data Design Interactive was looking for a company to publish its games in America, a role that Destineer eventually filled. Rinde garnered interest for these games from retailers, and sure enough, six DDI games ended up on the shelf for the week of 12/31.
...
We can't say for a fact that all the Destineer games released for the Wii this week were absolute crap, but considering that DDI is the same company that developed Ninjabread Man, we don't have high hopes. Even if games like these are selling to the public, low-quality games only create consumer distrust for third parties, ultimately hurting sales for the good games out there.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Data Design Interactive to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, none of these are significant coverage of the subject and do not assert its notability, they just have side-mentions of them in articles about their games. Note that many of their games do have articles, but notability is still not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

My opinion is that the sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".

Animation World Network says Data Design Interactive "has been churning out top-notch games for some of the industry's most prestigious publishers" and " has earned a reputation as one of the UK's top games developers". It notes that Data Design Interactive has worked for "Sony, Millennium, PSS, Psygnosis, Ocean and Infogrames on projects such as Pegasus Bridge, ROBOCOD, Rise of the Robots and Water World". It notes that Data Design Interactive has developed for "Spectrum, Amstrad, Amiga, Game Boy, PC, Sega Megadrive and, of course, the Playstation". This is significant coverage in reliable sources.

IGN notes about Data Design Interactive's The Kidz Sports Series: "Developer Data Design Interactive made not one, but three horrendously bad sports games geared towards youngsters". It then says about "The rest of Data Design Interactive's Library": "Okay, we don't mean this to be mean, but maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games. We've never seen a developer that spit out so many consistently awful titles in such a short time. Nearly every game we've reviewed under a 3.0 has come from this developer. That is just incredible."

A second IGN article notes "You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." The article then provides an example about Data Design Interactive's hockey game: "it's just offensive with broken motion controls, dumbed-down mechanics and presentation that is literally cut-and-pasted from other Data Design products".

The Gamer noted that Data Design Interactive is "Infamous for copying level designs wholesale from their previous titles, slapping a new coat of paint on them, and declaring them to be entirely new games". It says Anubis II is "a total reskin of Ninja Breadman, Rock n’ Roll Adventures, and Trixie in Toyland", which were also created by Data Design Interactive. It notes that Data Design Interactive shuttered in 2012 because of insolvency.

There is enough material about Data Design Interactive's reputation and practices (positive material from Animation World Network and negative material from IGN, The Gamer, and Engadget) to allow it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is bearly enough content for ten sentences, let alone an entire article. "Detail" is usually more than three sentences on a subject per source. Lordtobi (✉) 09:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Design Interactive participants: Heymid (talk · contribs), Hellknowz (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), and Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... a ping about a relisted AFD from 9 years ago? Let me take a look... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and suggest the nominator reads WP notability guidelines. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Catfish Jim, I'm well aware of our notability guidelines, and it is clear that the sources mentioned above do not establish notability for this topic. Not only do most of these not exceed one single mention, none of them actually goes in detail with it. Per WP:GNG: "... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..."
  - First IGN source mentions two games developed by the company, plus an opinion on that DDI was bad at making Wii games. That's one sentence.
  - Second and third IGN source each mention another game, and that they were copied from another game they made. One sentence total.
  - TheGamer (which is also not reliable) only mentions one other game by the studio, not worth a sentence as we already have a list.
  - Engadget only says that several games were published by Destineer. If you're generous, one more sentence.
  - The only high flyer here is AWN, which has ... 7 mentions. What does this source contain? Location, head of art department, sister studio, some more games they worked on, as well as some partners they worked with. Except for the games and parterns (where in "partner" means "they published a game"), give each one sentence. What are we left with? Six sentences, or in our terms, a bad stub. This does not make for a notable topic, I'm afraid. Lordtobi (✉) 12:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources before you nominated this? It doesn't take much google-fu to find articles like this... "POPCORN ARCADE HITS 40% MARKET SHARE OF THE EUROPEAN VALUE-PRICED WII GAMES", IGN, 15 Sep 2008 or this... "Data Design Interactive Opens U.S. Office", Gamasutra, May 27, 2008 or this... "Data Design Interactive and Conspiracy Entertainment finalise Publishing Deal for North America and Asia for Wii titles…", Gamesindustry.biz, June 26, 2007 or this... "Data Design Interactive to offer Wii games in 2007", Videogamer, 27 Feb 2007 Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 and 3 and press releases, 2 is already in the article, ref 4 is the same as this, which is also already in the article. And yes, I've been looking for sources. I have been looking out for such since 2016, and the lack of in-depth sources makes the non-notability of this company pretty obvious. If you'd check the article for a second, you'll see that I already incorporated the above sources that apparently assert the topic's notability, and it is still a way-too-short stub. Lordtobi (✉) 15:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game developer/publisher failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources provided are not in-depth, except perhaps AWM which would barely scrape the margin. They are reliable sources to provide supplementary information, but they are not sufficient for GNG purposes and the subject is not the central or primary topic of the articles. Coverage in contemporary magazines seems unlikely. Does not meet WP:NCORP and having developed notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree with Lordtobi's summary of the sources above. (My original !vote was "keep", but the guidelines were more lax in 2010 and my argument wasn't really based on GNG anyway.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of Cunard's references meet the criteria. The selected quotation picked from the first one in the list from AWN looked promising until you read the article and it as a result of a visit to the company and relies almost entirely on quotations/interviews and fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage given is sufficient to prove notability. Also the number of blue links in the list of games they created that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. A writer is notable for their books, a musician is notable for their songs, and a game company is notable for its games. Dream Focus 17:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, your reasoning directly contradicts WP:INHERIT. Shall mean, a company is not notable just because it made some notable games. If there is no information available except that it made X games, there is no reason in keeping what is basically a WP:DIRECTORY. Lordtobi (✉) 17:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should read that essay more closely. You don't get notability for being related to someone. It also reads: "That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)". So while all the games they made aren't notable just because the company is, the company is notable for what it creates. Just as all the books a notable writer makes don't inherit notability, the author is judged by their notable works to determine their own notability. Dream Focus 17:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritence works both ways. Please take a look at the current state of the article, it is merely a few introductory sentences, and then a full-on WP:DIRECTORY. The introductory sentences are based on all the sources (excl. press releases and duplicates) that this AfD has come up with thus far or was already in the article. Given the company's unpopularity and death seven years ago, it is also unlikely to expand. Does it look like a notable topic to you? Lordtobi (✉) 17:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the company is notable for what it creates" What notability guideline are you basing this on? The closest exception to the WP:NOTINHERITED argument is WP:AUTHOR, which is for people and for significant influential works, not a few random video games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lordtobi's analysis. There is no significant coverage of this company. The sources given here do not "address the topic directly and in detail". This article will never evolve beyond the sad depressing stub it is now. TarkusAB^talk 18:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, per Hellknowz, HighKing, Lordtobi, et al. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that this would be a valid list article. List of games made by Data Design Interactive. 15 of the games have their own articles. How about a compromise for now where we just rename it to be a list article? Dream Focus 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, the company made like 100 shovelware titles, being able to source 15 of them is a bad rate, so either it would be a woefully incomplete list article, or a mostly unsourced list article. I'd prefer to have neither. Besides, just like the developer's article, articles like Kawasaki Jet Ski and Kawasaki Snowmobiles should be deleted, as they only have one source and basically no content. An American Tail is just a redirect to the film of the same name, where there is literally just one sentence on the matter. Lordtobi (✉) 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will get into this matter soon detailed, but Dream Focus, I am looking at those blue-linked games, and I would be surprised if majority of those (so 8 of 14 alive) would stay as is if brought to AfD. Also I am willing to (ironically) not count IGN review considering they reviewed EACH and EVERY of those and regularly trashing them in the posts, which makes me think the publisher and IGN had a bad relationship and they "reviewed" to mock them for how bad they are, which wouldn't and shouldn't add to notability of these. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And to put my formal vote for th subject failing WP:NCORP. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", you say? Then let's analyze each reference put here (going numerically from Cunard to Catfish Jim ones):

1.This is a great source and by far the best of the bunch which would meet the criteria. However, majority of this significant coverage relates to developing a notable game Lego Rock Raiders (video game).

2."Data Design Interactive made horrible games" and "maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games" does not constitute as WP:SIGCOV.

3."You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." is not WP:SIGCOV.

4.Passing mention in another IGN's attack against Data Design Interactive.

5.Name drops in a paragraph about the game they developed is certainly not enough.

6."Rinde was in Europe when he found out that Data Design Interactive was looking for a company to publish its games in America, a role that Destineer eventually filled." Not WP:SIGCOV. Maybe in Wonderland.

Catfish 1. Press release as obvious by the way of writing.

Catfish 2. Another press release.

Catfish 3. Press release #3.

Catfish 4. Release in press...oh wait. It's not! But too bad, "Having secured developer status for Wii, Data Design Interactive has announced details of its titles heading to Nintendo's innovative console." along with a list of their games is not enough to be counted for WP:GNG, and absolutely not for WP:CORPDEPTH. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:55, 9 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) 02:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currencies Direct[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement. Has been tagged for notability for two years without improvement. Substantially written by promotional editors. Negligible sourcing. This has never been a good article, and shows no prospects for improvability. PROD removed with the sole comment WP:NOTCLEANUP - but the only source is a puff piece in a non-RS. There's no evidence of actual notability. Can anyone produce any? I'd be delighted to be shown wrong ... David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deprodded this because the delete justification gave me no indication that a notability assessment had been performed. Prod is not a place for deleting crappy articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So what does a quick WP:BEFORE tell you? - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It tells me that there are a lot of potentially WP:INDEPENDENT product review/comparison sources, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. I don't have enough familiarity with this subject area to assess whether these are WP:RELIABLE. ~Kvng (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finder barely for editorial content, all the others not. It's unclear from the thing at the top how independent that page actually is - David Gerard (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, are you seriously suggesting that any of those are actual independent reliable sources? Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than crufty business nonsense. There is almost nothing in the way of SIGCOV, everything I can find are press releases or otherwise not coverage in published, reliable sources (no, reviews on other business sites don't count anymore than a Yelp review would.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 10 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. Consensus exists that the article's sources establish notability. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual dark web[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web

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

Best discuss this time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual dark web has many "keep" votes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term has proved its persistance and is not going away any time soon. We have for example this May 22, 2019 article in the The Chronicle of Higher Education.[24] and this April 4th article takes the IDW as its central focus examining its political makeup.[25], and couple more from April.[26][27] The number of articles mentioning the term has grown a lot since previous discussions. The merge solution is not very suitable as Weinstein is not the most promenent person associated with the movement. There is a lot of material which would be appropriate for a separate article but is not suitable for the Eric Weinstein article.

I also disagree quite strongly with User:Sandstein closure of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web. In it the large number of references are dismissed mearly as opinion pieces. But we have NYT article which had the entire weight of the paper thrown behind the article, there were interviews with the major player and photoshoots, it was much more than a simple think piece. And what are we trying to prove here the notability of the article, an opinion piece strenthens that claim. Sandstein set the bar much higher that is applied to most other articles. --Salix alba (talk): 16:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If op-eds were insufficient sources in 2018, they are insufficient in 2019. wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have many sources in mainstream publications over a long period of time (more than a year) focused on the group including from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Politico, the Los Angeles Review of Books, The New York Times, The Washington Post... --RaphaelQS (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources look good enough and i've heard this movement be discussed in the news quite a lot. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may yet prove to be only a neologism, but at this point its usefulness continues, and neologisms often grow up to be real live boys.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis a valid and useful reference point in the current discussion over free speech and censorship on the internet. --User:Jim Proser
Note. There is a !vote on the talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salix alba. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage of this movement exists in reliable sources. See e.g. the sources given in the article currently, which are articles on this topic in respectable news publications. SJK (talk) 09:49, 11 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. And salted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Supratim Akaash Paul[edit]

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

Not notable. The award is just enough to avoid A7 but does not confer anything like sufficient notability. Sources are articles in which he appears as a rent-a-quote, they are not about him and do not cover him in any depth whatsoever. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Paul maintains WP:GNG . Improving the article as per suggestion shared by User:Hugsyrup User:Davidwarner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Supratim Akaash Paul is full protected due promotional creation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a fully rewritten article. There is no match with the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwarner (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt; no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and a possible violation of Terms of Use and COI guidelines. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT This is the third time the article creator has published an article, each time deleted and each time with a different variation of Paul's name to avoid detection. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Reads like spam. "is well known for his novel invention" Gah? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 10 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. bd2412 T 03:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L'albatros (poem)[edit]

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

move to wikisource. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had properly followed WP:BEFORE, you would have noticed there is 1910 results on google scholar, including [28]. Comte0 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Les Fleurs du mal, which the poem is apparently a part of, unless standalone notability of this poem can be established. Also fine with it being added to Wikisource, as it appears to be public domain based on the age. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The French article has several secondary sources. It also has context and analysis sections, which must be translated and are obviously not suited for wikibooks. And that poem is studied in French high schools. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the page's current state it should be moved to Wikisource as it basicly just the poem itself, but I do believe an article can be created about this poem, so I would say Move to Wikisource, and then create a stub or translation of the French article. funplussmart (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's already present twice on the french wikisource. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's no great shakes in its current state but its place in national French education curriculum alone suggests notability. This is only furthered by the sourcing present in the French article. This article could be expanded into meaningful and useful encyclopedic content and as such should not be moved to a sister project at the expense of an article here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis page as of now is obvious only suitable for Wikisource, if you think it should be kept, well, then rewrite it. If someone else is interested to write an actual introduction about the poem, they can still create it. Viztor (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom does not provide a single policy-based argument for why this article is brought to AFD. Sam Sailor 07:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not Wikisource, the current content is obviously more suitable for Wikisource. Viztor (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's still not a policy-based reason, it's mere opinion. Sam Sailor 10:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead now re-written and referenced, there are virtually 100s of sources to pick from, including a full treatment by Antonio Prete [it]. The French article can readily by used for expansion. It is a waste of community time to skip WP:BEFORE. Sam Sailor 10:04, 10 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) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Gabrielle[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Only 25 games played in the AHL and 200 minimum is needed to pass criteria #2. No notable preeminent honours to pass #3 (I seriously doubt AIHL All-Star Game counts) since the Australian League isn't listed). Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long list of non-notable hockey player articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets none of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Coverage is typical sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 9 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's clearly no consensus here to delete this outright, which is mostly what AfD is concerned about. Additional discussions about possibly merging or otherwise reorganizing this and related articles can continue on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean spelling alphabet[edit]

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

Not here. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hangul. Not worthy of its own article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but the info might be useful there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles like this, like Russian spelling alphabet, what's the difference, how is that one acceptable and this one not? Same kind of content. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 14:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hangul. Just because Russian spelling alphabet does exist, doesn't mean it should exist. I would support redirecting that page to Russian language as well. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hangul. Not an independent topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Not here" is not a reason for deletion in Wikipedia:deletion policy and is incoherent as a rationale. I also do not believe that anyone this far in the discussion has read the source cited. This is not some indiscriminate spelling alphabet being made up on the spot. This is, according to the source cited, the one mandated by Korean law for radio operators, which it seems perfectly valid for a encyclopaedia to document for readers. Ironically, this article, citing the regulations for radio operation on a government WWW site in its first edit, is better sourced than our SKATS article has been (sourced to a personal WWW site whose owner died) since 2006. For those now looking, you want Table 4 in Annex 1 of the cited regulations, as referenced by Article 4 of the regulations. Uncle G (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhere. It's sourced, and it answers the question of what other languages do. This seems like reasonable encyclopedic information, not an indiscriminate collection. I don't think there's room to add it to Hangul. We do have a page for the NATO alphabet, plus a Greek-language one. We have extensive coverage of the evolution of spelling alphabets; again, the page would be overloaded to add the non-Roman alphabets there. I'm thinking either keep the status quo or make one page for non-Roman alphabets. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Korean. This article and my proposed target are incredibly small. There simply isn't sufficient content to justify two separate articles. ℯxplicit 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a romanization, though. It's a spelling alphabet, and the words used for the letter spellings (e.g. 기러기) are Korean. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, article-worthy topic. None of the proposed merge targets are really appropriate (except I don't object to C.Fred's proposal of merging this to a page consolidating non-Roman spelling alphabets, but such a page doesn't exist yet.) SJK (talk) 09:45, 11 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AceVPN[edit]

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

This is borderline when it comes to WP:NSOFT - few mentions in passing, and two decent reviews: [29] and [30]. On article's talk, User:Djm-leighpark expressed concerns about the quality of the second review, and all other sources are worse. I agree that it is probably on the wrong line of NSOFT unless better sources are found? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: As far as I can tell through dead links and spam attackers my good faith view is the links to Turkey are tenuous and likely overblown. As seems to be usual for VPNs this goto site seems to offer a comphrenesive [31] review. Similar precedents come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gom VPN; the former being retained after a significant rewrite improvement and the latter deleted. The are from eighty to over 400 VPN providers .... very unique differentiator(s) or a large number of servers (one thousand range) are probably needed for interest in notability. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable, or perhaps redirect to the VPN comparison page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources provided to demonstrate notability. SJK (talk) 09:46, 11 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 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nirali Kartik[edit]

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

Doesn't fit in WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG, few news articles with trivial mentions, but no signs of significant contribution to the field. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 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. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weedon Pinkney Priory[edit]

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

Very little information on page and lacking references Willbb234 (talk) 12:39, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither of nom's two statements are reasons for deletion, as notability is determined by what is in the world, not what's on Wikipedia. However, Weedon Pinkney priory has very substantial coverage at British History Online and there's more at the local council. Some of the history, with fine images which could be uploaded to Commons can be viewed at the King's College Cambridge website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too short or no references are not reasons for deletion. If the topic fails the criteria under WP:GNG and WP:NGEO both, it might be deleted. It meets GNG with significant coverage from sources given above. --94rain ^Talk 13:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article with a relevant and important article. I think, the article subject could remain in another Wikipedia article by merging.Forest90 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per first two above. --Doncram (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it was also called Weedon Lois or Weedon Loys Priory, searching those terms gives a few results as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe we have articles on all English medieval monasteries. We may need redirects from the alternative names. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has references, so nominator's reasoning is fatally flawed. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap, British History Online is a tertiary source and there is quite a bit about it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Opoku[edit]

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

This article was PRODed with the rationale "Unable to find any reliable sources that verify these claims. Links given are broken or do not mention him. There is another Eric Opoku who played with the national under-17 team but he does not have the nickname Diego. I suspect this is made up, like the author's other articles." The next day, the article's author removed the PROD and added more material. But the PROD rationale still stands - there are no sources in the article that even mention him, and I can find no evidence of him other than a Facebook account that might be him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As we can see from the first version, this article was initially copied from Eric Opoku. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under rationale of original proposed deletion. ... discospinster _talk 13:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because two reason, first it's not notable itself and second the lack of enough reliable sources that cover the subject.Forest90 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea what to do with this. There are a number of sources which actually do mention an Erick Opoku playing for Dynamos [32] [33] [34] [35] There's also a mention of the possible other Erick Opoku here [36]. Other references I've found, though not necessarily passing GNG, include [37] and [38], but I'm not sure if it's about the same footballer. Further complicating things is it appears "Eric Opoku" is also a soccer journalist and the regional minister of Brong-Ahafo region, but "Eric Opoku" clearly exists per Soccerway. I have no idea what to do with this, but I think we have to delete for now even though there's some level of verification with the Zimbabwe press reports. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This one is like a puzzle, you have to analyze both possibilities: that Eric Opoku and Erick Opoku are one and the same, a single Ghanian footballer who played in the Ghana Premier League and the Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League in the 2010s, in which case, this article, Erick Opoku, should be deleted as a WP:FORK or duplicate of Eric Opoku (relevant content, once verified, can be merged), because we should only have one article about the subject. On the other hand, if Erick Opoku is a different Ghanian footballer, who played in Zimbabwe for the Dynamos while Eric Opoku was playing in Ghana, then the Erick Opoku article should be deleted because Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League isn't listed on WP:FPL and there's no evidence of the subject meeting WP:NFOOTY, and none of the sources in the article or in this AfD even come close to meeting WP:GNG. In sum, neither Eric nor Erick Opoku meet GNG, but Eric Opoku meets NFOOTY (via Soccerway and other refs put forward here), while Erick Opoku does not. – Levivich 05:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 06:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the current refs this fails WP:V. I don't see how "Erick Opoku" meeets GNG. And we have an article on Eric. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 4 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) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmbax[edit]

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

Probably a candidate for A7 speedy, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt that there is some claim to significance buried in here. Nevertheless, clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because it's not notable itself and also clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, as your description say.Forest90 (talk) 13:56, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual studio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Suggest merging to another topic or deleting. There's no source added since 2010.

I can't find sources talking about the term "virtual studio." Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took about 15 seconds to turn up an entire book on the subject, ISBN 9780240804255 published in 2000 and written by the person who was the head of engineering at the Israel Broadcasting Authority for several years. Xe also wrote an encyclopaedia of of television and radio terminology, published in 2015, which has an entry for this on page 170. And that was just the first minute of looking. A few moments more effort turns up a SIGGRAPH paper by Peter Wißkirchen from 1996, and papers such as doi:10.1109/93.664740 that then cite M. Wißkirchen. And that's not even yet looking at things like doi:10.1109/93.502291 or considering the alternative name virtual set.
Where on Earth did you look for sources? Whereever it was, it was not nearly enough. Uncle G (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google, Google News. And add the sources to the article? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:Do it yourself, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 5 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. No clear rationale for merging a list of non notable players into the club article when a link to the category is preferable in terms of maintaining balance in the article. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All-time K-W United FC roster[edit]

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

The parent article K–W United FC is barely notable itself and does not not need an all-time roster subpage. In particular, this list fails WP:LISTPEOPLE as the vast majority of names included do not meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. This topic is better suited for a category (Category:K-W United FC players) in my opinion. BLAIXX 11:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 11:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full of redlinks unlikely to ever be filled out. Plus we don't even give a presumption of notability for players at this level, I fail to see how a collection of these players is notable enough to necessitate this article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 06:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOTADIRECTORY, fails WP:LISTN, and a WP:FORK of the "notable former players" section of the K-W United FC article (which is a proper list, limited to notable former players, and in the proper place). – Levivich 06:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 07:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to K–W United FC - If the team is deemed notable then a list of players is likely legitimate content for the encyclopedia. Whether this list is in K–W United FC, split out into this separate list or not included anywhere is a decision for the article editors, not AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to argue with your vote, but I want to record my strong disagreement with the principle that if a team is notable, a list of its players is therefore encyclopedic content, which I think is exactly what WP:NOTADIRECTORY is about. We wouldn't, for example, have a complete list of the employees, or even the executives, officers or directors, of a company, no matter how notable the company is. We wouldn't have a complete list of all the residents of a notable town. A complete roster is, in my opinion, the very opposite of encyclopedic content, which is about curation and summation, not exhaustively-complete documentation. That is one of the very key differences between an encyclopedia, on the one hand, and a directory or an almanac, on the other. </rant> – Levivich 23:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but my point is that I see this as either being kept or merged or redirected to the club's article; I don't see a good case or need for outright deletion. Whenever matters like this can be handled with bold edits instead of deletion, we all come out ahead. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to K-W United FC - The main thing here is the fact that its already part of the K-W United article and it doesn't really need to be seperated into a seperate article. Also if we are going to delete this page, may I also add All-time Hamilton FC roster to this discussion as this is a redirect to the article in question. HawkAussie (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support considering redirect as a part of this AfD, seems uncontroversial and the outcome would presumably be the same. Jay eyem (talk) 02:27, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Nyathi[edit]

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

Promotional article with dubious claims to fame. Some mentions of him and interviews but not notable and fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the sources appear to be using a single interview/ press release. No evidence of any notability. I PRODed it a few days ago to give the author an opportunity to improve the article, but no improvement is evident. Searches reveal nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 17:09, 7 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 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milin Dokthian[edit]

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

The subject does not pass the notability criteria for entertainers and musicians. She has no personal work outside the band, the roles she has in films, tv shows, etc, are all minor, she has no significant contribution in any entertainment field, and thus she has no established notability that warrants a stand-alone article for her, unlike her fellow member Cherprang Areekul. So, her article is proposed to be deleted (or redirected to List of BNK48 members). Miwako Sato (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 3 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) 02:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Byrd (guitarist)[edit]

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

Non-notable guitarist that fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENT. Can't find any significant coverage about the subject, the only two sources in the article are a interview and Allmusic profile page. All content is promotional or drawn from promotional sources. Might be a case of WP:Promo. It was speedy deleted 10 years ago under the title James byrd musician Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:42, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suspect that someone will recommend redirecting to his old band Fifth Angel, but note that there are many other James Byrd's so redirecting this title somewhere would be a problem. For THIS James Byrd, he seems to be making an honest living as a journeyman musician and he has gotten some notice from gearheads, but his solo career simply hasn't gotten enough reliable media notice. I must concur that the article appears to be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leadstart Publishing Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. The only source (from the Business Standard newspaper) on closer inspection appears to be not actually written by Business Standard: its just a copy of a press release from the organization itself. A googling turned up only mentions of the company in comments on articles about books or publishing in India in general, or other copies of the same press release. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Couldn't find anything about the company except for the most trivial mentions, e.g. being identified as the publisher of a book. Routine notices such as the referenced funding are not significant or notable. ogenstein (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the page's purpose seems to be blatant WP:PROMO. ogenstein (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Dial911 (talk) 18:20, 7 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. Sandstein 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Klarskov[edit]

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

Extrabladet is a tabloid and not an RS. Everything else is very short coverage of a porn performer presenting a radio show for one week. In no way does this pass GNG or ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - It's like you didn't even look at the article during WP:BEFORE with sources like Berlingske [39] and Dagbladet Information [40]. You also cannot simply dismiss the reliability of a newspaper simply because of its tabloid size format i.e. the New York Post & New York Daily News.[41][42] With Danish sources from Google News like Se og Hør, Ekstra Bladet, B.T., TV2 consistently covering her, she is clearly a popular celebrity in her country passing WP:ENT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EB is a tabloid not just in size but also in terms of being yellow press. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know this how? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lived in Denmark for 4 years. Was able to read enough of the press to know what was news and what was scandle/gossip rag. @Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Few sources, but meets WP:BASIC.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you think pass gng and why do you think they pass? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources exist - search for them. Especially if the nominator knows the Danish language, one example hereBerlingske "jeg-naar-aldrig-at-taenke-paa-det-som-sex", and they call her "Danmarks mest benyttede pornomodel" (Denmark's most widely used porn model)[43] Christian75 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Most of the references are fairly trite, and as previously pointed out, tabloid fare. Searches through news come up with these and similar results. A couple of them used the exact same verbiage. She probably isn't completely typical of others in her industry in that she has her own company, and has appeared in some other types of shows but do these things make her notable? We still have the problem of not being able to have a meaningful biography despite these myriad sources. ogenstein (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles comes up far short of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The WP:THREE are [44] [45] [46], and if you don't like EB as an WP:RS, there's BT, and if you don't like BT as an WP:RS, there's the TV2 documentary, and there are yet more out there (here's one about whether her Wikipedia article lists her correct weight or not, LOL, I think they have a point: why was weight in the article? Is she like a boxer that has to meet a certain weight class?). – Levivich 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that she doesn't exist, just that the type of coverage she receives does not support her having a standalone page. I see some comments as to her meeting WP:BASIC but when I consider those linked pages, I'm not convinced. The EB piece about her wiki page is trivial. Getting blocked on FB for a month? Less than trivial. TV2 is promoting their product. The three other referenced pieces (6,7,8) all fall under primary accounts and BASIC explicitly states that primary sources can support content but do not contribute to notability. ogenstein (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability factor is clearly not there no matter how far people try to stretch. Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – She is the protagonist of a Danish documentary, already cited above by Levivich, on the world of porn in Los Angeles. This one has been broadcasted several times in Italy by Cielo TV under the title Naked. Westmanurbe (talk) 21:33, 9 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) 01:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Spectroscopic Ellipsometry[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for this conference series. It belongs on wikidata. Wikidata, despite my initial skepticism, does seem to be good for some things, after all, like listings that are just listings. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources related to the subject. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 3 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. Sandstein 10:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driving to Geronimo's Grave and Other Stories[edit]

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

Lonsdale is of course notable. Some of his novels are. Possibly some individual short stories are. But not this particular collection of works, all of which are adequately covered in Joe E. Lonsdale Bibliography--and so is this collection itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, article has now been improved with multiple reviews cited (some are "trade" reviews but are okay for notability). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there still is not enough for notability of a specific collection. The reviews are pure routine. The analogy here is the notability of a mixtape. The repackaging of previously published material does not make for separate notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder. "Lansdale brings his East Texas noir style to another dynamite collection of short stories that show off his humor, his range, and his creativity. Although some of these tropes will be familiar to longtime Lansdale readers, every story still feels electric and fresh, bringing something new to the table. And getting Lansdale’s insights into each story after reading it is just icing on the cake. This is marvelous stuff all around." --- doesn't sound like "pure routine" to me. San Francisco Book Review, a proper review conducted with attention and respect. BTW it's Joe R. Lansdale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the stories that may even be individually notable. They have all been published previously. This is just a reprinted collection of them. Are you saying that Lonsdales's individual comments about his own stories are separately notable, for each group of stories that gets reprinted? DGG ( talk )

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This is a limited run collection and really shouldn't have its own page. The reviews are all perfunctory, and that's not an inherently bad thing — after all, these stories have all been published already. Why would there be a serious review. Given the small print run, it's not like it would really be worth the effort. The verbiage from the SFBR 'review' could be applied to any similar collection. I don't believe anyone read the book (which would apply to any of the several reviews I read). Even had the site done so, I don't see how it would be considered a reliable source given their stated purpose (reviews in bulk). As an aside, on the bibliography page, shouldn't it be characterised as a collection of shorts rather than novellas? ogenstein (talk) 20:32, 3 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 redirect to Bangor, County Down#Education. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyholme Primary School[edit]

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

~~Unsourced article rife with original research on a typical primary school, no significant coverage beyond the expected local sources and passing mentions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination, preference is now to speedy redirect. – Teratix ₵ 02:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect, no need for an AfD~~ - Per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N - "Non-notable school articles are generally blanked and redirected to the school district's article (USA) or to an appropriate section on the article about its locality (rest of the world) and merging any appropriate content. The R from school template should be placed on the redirect page, which then also automatically populates the related category. This is an uncontroversial operation and avoids unnecessary use of PROD, CSD or WP:AfD and is governed by policy at WP:ATD-R." Orville1974 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is OK I guess. – Teratix ₵ 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect - Admin, per nominator's agreement to redirect and WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG guidance, please blank the page (but save the history) and redirect to Bangor, County Down adding the R from school template to the redirect page. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 01:46, 6 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael van Holst[edit]

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

Local councillor of medium-sized city, running for federal office. Not notable as either as per NPOL. Page only cites local news sources. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NPOL requirements, article can be re-created if van Holst wins a seat in the upcoming Federal election. PK T(alk) 14:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. London, Ontario is not a global city for the purposes of getting its city councillors over WP:NPOL #2, and people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in federal elections they have not yet won. To get an article for being a city councillor, he would have to be sourceable to much more than just local coverage as being much more nationally notable than most other city councillors in Canada, and to get an article out of the federal election, he would have to win the seat on election day. So no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Bearcat mentioned, they would not meet municipal politician notability. Candidates for office do not meet WP:NPOL just for being candidates. If someone creates an article for Conservative Party of Canada candidates, 2019 Canadian federal election with a list of candidates, perhaps we can redirect. If van Holst wins in London--Fanshawe, we can re-visit the article. Bkissin (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete London Ontario city council members are not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 5 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clown world[edit]

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

An anonymous buddy on WP:Discord had concerns about this article. Its own references include Paul Joseph Watson, another YouTube video, and Big League Politics. The prod was contested, but there still is no claim in the article to any sort of relevance, notability, or lack of POV. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not Know Your Meme. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Lacks notability and we are indeed not Know Your Meme. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNP. No evidence that there has been any significant impact of this meme. If something happens to propel it into the mainstream in the way Pepe the Frog or NPC have been it should be reconsidered but at this point I don't see how this is notable. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 06:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is claim to notability such as it is, that the concept is being used as a yardstick (for lack of a better word) by multiple authors with large audiences, and is being characterised politically. Those arguing for deletion, please link to relevant wikipedia rules at all times. Some of us are not as well versed as others.Asgrrr (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asgrrr: Hey there! There are a few rules with this type of thing, but the most relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability. You may also like to read the deletion policy which has the most important, top-level, information concerning article deletion on Wikipedia. In reference to your exact concern, WP:NOTINHERITED would be a good start (whereas a notable person might discuss a variety of topics, but those topics as themselves are not inherently notable). There are several alternatives to deletion you may also want to consider in response to the concerns brought up here. I hope this helps!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Coverage in reliable sources is lacking and the sourcing in the article are of questionable reliability. Disclosure: referred to her on Discord. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nowhere close to being notable. X-Editor (talk) 16:03, 8 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Price (Canadian Politician)[edit]

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

Autobiography with no sources that show this person meets the notability guidelines. Good faith google search coming up with primary sources and something that reads a lot like a press release. PROD was contested without explanation by IP user without addressing the issues, so here we are. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, the article appears to also be an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is clearly an WP:AUTOBIO, that was created by Evan himself. Kevinhanit (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - To paraphrase Winston Wolfe, just because the subject would like to be a politician doesn't mean that he is a politician. WP:NPOL explicitly states that an 'unelected candidate for political office' has no guarantee of notability. And all of the news results were for other people. Even removing the bracketed words and then adding the riding name did not provide a single result pointing to him. No 'newspaper' results at all. As an aside, his party does not have a strong track record in that riding. Not sure of the significance here but creating his own page (which is what appears to have happened), doesn't make for a good look. ogenstein (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for campaign literature. To get a Wikipedia article because politics, he would have to win the seat on October 20, and thereby hold the office of MP — and short of that, he has to be demonstrated as already having preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway. So he can be recreated on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he's already eligible to have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Placeholder article for someone who fails WP:NPOL. Could theoretically be a G11 if it could be proven to be PROMO. Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for office are rarely notable. Wikipedia is not a platform for distributing campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tabou (film)[edit]

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

Short film with not much notability to be found. It apparently was at some award show that I can't find info for though. Still not much else to say. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibo, o sangue do silêncio (another similar case) Wgolf (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 3 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) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hel (film)[edit]

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

Another short film of questionable notability. Though unlike some of the others-this at least is on the IMDB and has a Youtube link (which is more then I can say about others. Still I can't find any notability.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibo, o sangue do silêncio Wgolf (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources as, for example, there are no external reviews at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 5 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 redirect to JoJo Siwa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The JoJo & BowBow Show Show[edit]

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

This is a Web series of YouTube shorts without notability (it fails Wikipedia's rule called WP:WEB). There is no significant coverage beyond a mention, and the only sources come from the press announcements. Houtakar (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the creator of the page removed a notability tag and in the edit description, said that it was notable because JoJo Siwa was involved with the Web shorts. This goes against the Wikipedia:Notability (web)#No inherited notability: "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." Houtakar (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please no. Not another article requested for deletion. My creation feed is going down! I can’t deal with this! HappyINC (talk) 23:58, 2 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JoJo Siwa. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JoJo Siwa, as per John M. Wolfson, no independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:52, 3 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) 00:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Campanella[edit]

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

Actress of questionable notability. She has only been in 3 films, which only 2 even have Wikipedia articles. And based off where she appears on the credits in either one of them, neither look like that important of roles. One thing that was making me question if I should put this up or not is how this actually has quite a few foreign wiki pages up. Oddly though-there isn't one in Italian. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are way past the point where all articles sourced only to IMDb should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NACTOR with only a few minor roles in notable films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and Atlantic306 - fails WP:NACTOR. Geoffroi (talk) 17:03, 7 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of Investigation[edit]

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

Russian television series. The article has no awards and reviews. Sources - the official website of the TV channel and the social network VKontakte. Part of the article is written in Russian.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 23:50, 2 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the references at ru:Тайны_следствия Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This looks like a subject that is likely to be notable, as it lasted 19 years on the air. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- suggesting that a show should be deleted because it hasn't won any awards is...not a criteria as far as I'm aware for TV programs. The article should be tagged for improvement, but a series airing on Russia-1 would be notable. matt91486 (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable long-running program, though the article needs improvement.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:08, 6 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. That sources have not been added to the article is not a valid reason for relisting. That they exist is enough. SpinningSpark 16:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Mersea Yacht Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Local sailing and social organization, can't find substantive independent sources to pass WP:NORG Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic institution covered in Salty Shore and Yacht and Rowing Club Buttons. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founded in 1899 plenty of coverage in earlier years. Doesnt have to be online.Rathfelder (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:OLDSUBJECT? Having made a button that's in a book doesn't make it notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not comfortable with this being closed as a keep yet, as we're 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the article, however, none of the suggested references have been added to the article to improve it or satisfy any of the concerns of the nominator. Maybe another week around the AFD track can illicit some more input and either help the article be improved or gain a more solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existence of sources has been established, and the AFD should be closed. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 06:59, 3 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.