Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 March	17 March >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homa Shaibany[edit]

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

~~Possible hoax that has been on here for years. I am having a really tough time finding any info about her outside of mirrors of Wikipedia. Wgolf (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)~~Withdrawn[reply]

Comment I wasn't able to find a copy of the article cited as a reference, but it did lead me to an entry for her in Women in Medicine: An Encyclopedia (ABC-CLIO, 2002). This, in turn, points back to Women Doctors of the World (Macmillan, 1957). She is also listed in a 1932 publication by University College London, whose nature I can't tell from the snippet view, but it might be a list of graduates. So, a hoax looks quite unlikely. XOR'easter (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, so not a hoax then at least. It was pretty tough to tell. Wgolf (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd though given that shes suppose to be the first woman in her country to be a surgeon that there is little info, not even pages that can link to her. Unless if she has another name (article has been around since 2006 with little to no improvement. Had someone not mistakenly put her as a living person back in 2007 I wouldn't of found this!)Wgolf (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found mentions of her in several places, so I'm pretty sure this is not a hoax. There is more information here. I can't access any other sources, so I don't know if there is significant coverage anywhere else, but this seems like a probable keep. Natureium (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-I might withdraw this if more sources are found. Wgolf (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found above are sufficient, including a substantial entry in a print encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at it again the next day, I concur with the !vote above that the sources are sufficient. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw-Okay withdrawing this. Odd how a AFD actually helped this article, well wouldn't be the first or the last time that happened. Wgolf (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Has enough sources to be notable Alex-h (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definately now meets WP:GNG per updates. Britishfinance (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:REFUND may be used to request history undeletion for merging to a suitable target. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Riechers[edit]

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

Absolutely no idea why this article exists. A guy who worked for a defence contractor killed himself. That’s it. Mccapra (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! He worked for the secretary of the Air Force, and apparently committed suicide? While on a weird short-term contract? It is automatically important and permanently notable when people around our leaders die unexpectedly, even if it is by their own hand. We should not just KEEP this article, but DELETE the NOMINATION FOR DELETION! ♠Ace Frahm♠^talk 10:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When giving the title takes half the article the person is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. His suicide was reported, but other than that there is no indication of notability. There might be a greater story in it, but it is unclear what, and a simple news report of an apparent suicide is no indication of significance. Notability doesn't come from vague insinuation of something improper. Unless more come out of the story, then the person would not be considered notable (even if more comes out, it may still likely be WP:BLP1E). Hzh (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Committing suicide does not confer notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This subject and his suicide was described in an article on 'The corruption that cost America a war', by New York Times journalist Frank Rich, as "a window into the culture of the whole debacle". (I found the article republished in The Palm Beach Post [1] and The Berkshire Eagle on Newspapers.com - no doubt it was first published by the NYT.) A book, Government Contracting: Promises and Perils (Routledge 2016) includes a substantial paragraph about him in the chapter 'Government Contracting: Promises and Perils' [2]. Time magazine also covered his suicide, though the snippet view does not show how much coverage there is [3]. I don't think that he should be deleted completely - either merge, if a suitable target for merging the information about him can be found, or keep (and possibly rename to Suicide of Charles Riechers??). The article certainly needs improving ("the Air Force" - which air force???) - I will add the references I found and some clarifying links etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I started at a clear delete and ended up more ambivalent. There is a level of sigcov, but if it were to be kept, it shouldn't be under Charles Riechers as coverage of him is only in context of the incident and subsequent suicide.[4][5][6][7]. Here's the thing: ONEEVENT applies and if the same situation had occurred but he had resigned and retired then there really wouldn't be enough to overcome BLP. Nor does it look like there were major ongoing ramifications by which this can be put in context. The article is an orphan, and the "scandal" is both minor and questionable. I suppose a redirect and 1-2 sentences at Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance could be done using the Wired column. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the references and more information from them, and added a lead and sections. Re the above editor's suggestion for redirection - he wasn't a government contractor, he was appointed to the second highest procurement position in the Air Force, so I don't think that would be appropriate at all. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was given a SETA contract, which led to (the appearance of?) impropriety.[8] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:26, 23 March 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. bd2412 T 01:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doruk Kara[edit]

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

Actor I can't find much notability for. So far just 2 roles (and last one was in 2011), and all I can really find on google are mirror sites Wgolf (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR with only two minor roles listed here and nothing extra at IMDb which corresponds to little coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 minor roles. fails WP:NACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 23 March 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 close. Page deleted as G5, created by globally-locked user Giovanni.prinzi. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Jahn (physician)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any specific notability criteria, not WP:GNG, a WP:BEFORE search shows up others with similar names but doesn't add much Melcous (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources with significant coverage. The results on google seem to be for a different person with the same name. Natureium (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's important to disentangle any potential sources from those about Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, who was active at about the same time. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 17 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bikash Khawas[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. PROD removed by creator of article without explanation. Melcous (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I asked the creator to provide references to significant coverage by Monday or I would take to AFD so i'll wait till then to vote but he does not pass WP:NFOOTY and I could not find any sig cov in the article or on google, at least not in reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no additional references have been put forward and I haven't found them so WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY are not passed at this stage of his career, unfortunately Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet NFOOTY, doesn't meet GNG. Leviv ich 03:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NFOOTBALL. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Improve and Keep - It seems like local news might have reported the subject more than the creator has mentioned in the article, so there might be more and trusted sources available in local language. as there are few in Himalayan Times and Kathmandu post. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:35, 23 March 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. Very evenly split over whether this is covered by WP:BLP1E. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Haruka Iwao[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - nearly all the sources are about the recent calculation, which may be notable itself but does not confer notability for a biography. The rest do not appear to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E, the 1E being a trivial achievement. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep she is mentioned on the page Approximations of Pi and Chronology of computation of π. She is the only person that the recent world record is attributed to. How is Iwao having a biography different to Fabrice Bellard, the 2009 record holder? Given the coverage Iwao has received, since I made the page on 14/03 (i.e. two days ago) it has received 5,139 views (https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Emma_Haruka_Iwao). Jesswade88 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if Fabrice Bellard is notable, but that page does at least list some other awards and achievements that could make a claim to notability. Are there other awards or achievements here other than the calculation of pi that could establish her notability? Melcous (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Bellard is notable for any number of things. He not only did the computation, he developed some novel formulae for computing pi. And he's an absolute monster at cranking out major software proects: The tiny C compiler. PC emulator in a javascript that can boot Linux in a browser. The BPG graphics format. Qemu. 4G LTE cell phone base station on a software defined radio. The aforementioned Pi computation software. This is far more impressive and varied than someone who downloaded y-cruncher from Alexander Yee's website and ran it on a big computer. 209.209.238.189 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Comment I can't resist mentioning that one of the things Bellard developed is Bellard's formula, which was used to verify Iwao's computation, according to the entry in Chronology of computation of π --99.238.172.169 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the task is awesome then the person who achieves it is notable IMO. This calc was expensive. She persuade people/company to put up the money and that she had the most efficient code etc. The refs cover not only this one task but also her longer interest in Pi approximations. This is an interesting applied maths person doing accessible maths with wide public interest and with multiple quality references. Victuallers (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see https://www.google.com/search?q=Emma+Haruka+Iwao plenty of mentions in lots of reputable and independent news sources, big jump for her Guinness World Records feat which was "from 31 trillion digits, far past the previous record of 22 trillion" Duncan.Hull (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references above are social media frippery, the others are non in-depth. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I find it strange that you say that all of the references are 'social media frippery' given that her work has had global coverage across most of the well-respected and well-recognised newspapers and news agencies in the world? There are very few people in the world who would have the powerful combination of knowledge or opportunity to do these calculations, and it is disappointing that her work is being diminished. There is more than one notable person on wikipedia who has 'only' done one thing, so I do not think this is a fair reason to propose deletion. Eolaíocht (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of references in the article to justify being kept. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the proposer, WP:BLP1E is the most pertinent policy. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's hard to imagine a situation that fits WP:BLP1E more closely. Coverage is fairly shallow, and is all in the context of this one event, which isn't even really notable enough to sustain its own article (although it certainly merits a mention in a few other places). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is coverage at least 3 continents but it is not a case of good sources as there is plenty, but it seems to be only for this one event. There is nothing outside it. So WP:BLP1E applies exactly. I also think it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clear case of WP:BLP1E. Edwardx (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E has been one of the most misunderstood and abused bits of policy in Wikipedia. In this case, we have it being misapplied to a public figure on the grounds that in the opinion of some Wikipedia editors, reliable sources are wrong to give this person coverage. Guinness World Records is wrong for conferring a record on this public figure. You're entitled to your opinion, but the key to how we make decisions is that we defer to the wisdom of sources. If the BBC, Guinness Records, NPR and so on, find this notable, then we follow suit, even if we disagree. Getting back to BLP1E, the policy is carefully written to explain that a series of boxes must be checked and only if every condition is met, then BLP1E's additional scrutiny applies. The key one here is low profile individual. This is your typical private citizen. Non-celebrity. Non-activist. Non-performer. Non-public-facing worker. A regular person, who had the spotlight thrust upon them, often because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They got caught up in a major news event, were interviewed on TV, and went back to their obscure life. Iwao is Google's public face here. Google put her out there, publicized her work. She stepped forward in front of the camera, as part of her job, to do this publicity. Put aside your personal opinions on whether that is worthy of your attention. The simple fact is that is shows this is a public figure, someone who works in the public eye. Therefore, does not check all the boxes of BLP1E.
When BLP1E doesn't apply, you fall through to the more broad criteria, WP:BASIC, or simply WP:GNG. The quantity of coverage we see here, and the significance of a Guinness Record (i.e. WP:ANYBIO), are enough to meet those standards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent rationale @Dennis Bratland:. scope_creep^Talk 11:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to give you credit for at least addressing the BLP1E concerns, which other keep voters haven't done. But I still have to disagree. Simply doing some interviews, especially at the urging of your employer (are you going to risk losing your job by saying no?), doesn't even remotely mean that you're a public figure. The three boxes of BLP1E are definitely met here. "1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." I think this one's clear and not in any sort of dispute. "2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." As I mentioned above, I don't even think the event itself warrants its own article, and I don't see how you can expect Iwao to not remain a low-profile individual. This isn't someone who goes around as a public face of Google as part of their job. This was a one-off event. And "3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. [...] The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Again, this event doesn't seem particularly significant. It's happened before and it'll happen again, and it's not something that has gotten or is going to get continuing coverage. So yes, BLP1E applies, and I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone invoking it above didn't consider this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
”This isn't someone who goes around as a public face of Google as part of their job”. Really? Can you remind us again, what is her job? One that in no way involves her face appearing before the public?
You don’t believe she played a significant role in this calculation? You don’t credit her with much more than being a bystander who got caught up in an event she did not cause? Who then is it who played a significant role here? —Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone can come up with something else notable about her, by all means expand the article and keep it! But as I see it, she downloaded y-cruncher (which Alexander Yee wrote) and ran it on a big computer to compute 40% more digits of pi than the previous record holder. There's nothing novel or creative about that. It was perfectly clear the software was capable; she just had (via Google sponsorship) more hardware resources than the earlier record holders. This warrants a one-paragraph mention in Chronology of computation of π and related articles, but in terms of notable achievements, that's a one-trick pony with a trick that's been done before.:

Do we have an article about Dovilio Nardi, baker of the world's biggest pizza? No, because it's a marginally notable achievement which does not suffice to make the achiever notable. The Michael Fagan incident is the other side of the line, since a few other interesting related things happened to him.

But in this case, there's no WP:SUSTAINED interest. (I agree WP:LOWPROFILE does not apply, as she has sought out the attention. But not every attention-seeker deserves a vanity page.) 209.209.238.189 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:LOWPROFILE, A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. That is not the case here, and so WP:BLP1E does not apply. I could be convinced that a merge would be appropriate, but that doesn't have to be decided immediately. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't agree with this assessment. There's no indication that she's sought out any attention. Simply agreeing to be interviewed isn't enough. From the linked page:

Low-profile: May have appeared on or been featured on such a show without their consent – e.g. "ambush journalism". May have been quoted or even profiled in a local or special-interest newspaper, website, magazine or other publication. May have been interviewed by a major news source as a "mouthpiece" – i.e., as part of his/her job as a spokesperson for an employer, representing that party not him/herself.

This certainly wasn't any sort of ambush, but this is still low-profile stuff. Even if you don't accept that BLP1E applies, she doesn't pass WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Running a program to do a computationally expensive task on hardware provided by your employer and then giving a few basic sound bites just isn't enough. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please define “low-profile stuff”. The policy applies to a low-profile person, not “stuff”. The stuff, the event, is high profile. You’re claiming she was a private citizen who found herself in the public eye by surprise, rather than attracting publicity as a consequence of her own agency. A random driver who gets caught in a bridge collapse has no agency. The guy who intentionally caused the collapse has agency. Appearing in a viral video by random chance, a bystander in the background, is low profile. Making and uploading a viral video is an act of agency, it gives oneself a public profile.
Iwao did this thing. It wasn’t done to her. It didn’t happen to her. She made it happen.—Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PSEUDO. I am the unregistered user who flagged this originally. The substance of the article is:

In 2019 Haruka Iwao calculated the world's most accurate value of pi; which included 31.4 trillion digits.... using 170 TB of data. The calculation involved a program called y-cruncher and was performed over 25 machines for 121 days.

I haven't gone through AfD in years, and I see that the pseudo-biography policy now has a section that sounds like it was written for this case:

...If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context.... In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family background, hobbies and employment, etc....

And this is more or less what has occurred here. --99.238.172.169 (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 99.238.172.169. The article does not mention the date or place she was born nor her hobbies or family background. It details her education, which is relevant to her career and world record. I agree, there isn't much written about her - but there is rarely much detail written about women working in the tech industry (other than that they are women working in the tech industry). It seems peculiar to only use Wikipedia to try and get a page deleted - why not contribute to make the encyclopaedia better? Jesswade88 (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant from a Google Cloud Development persepctive, I guess, but from the perspective of Chronology of computation of π, not so much. I think the parts I quoted are the bits that are relevant. As for my own contributions to Wikipedia, I don't see why they matter. But for the record I have sporadic contributions going back to just before 2003, just not from this IP address. Thank you for your interest. --99.238.172.169 (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not seeing any valid reason to delete. WP:BLP1E applies only to people who are only notable for one event, usually an event that is itself notable enough for a standalone article (thus turning those articles into forks of each other). In this case, not only is 2019 record for calculation of pi unlikely to ever get its own article (and I don't see any other good merge target), but... If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event is contradicted by the fact that she was being profiled by Japanese computing webzines years before the event, even just on a quick Google search.[9][gihyo.jp/lifestyle/serial/01/it-study-meeting/0006] (And that doesn't include her multiple self-published books that presumably she wouldn't have kept writing if they didn't sell. Please note that I'm not saying any of these sources are useful for GNG, since one of them is an interview and the other is a summary of a presentation she made, along with those of several others.) If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual seems highly unlikely, given Japan's propensity for immortalizing its own overseas innovators; the only way this could apply is if she actively came out and said "I don't want to be a public figure, please leave me alone and delete my Wikipedia article", which again seems unlikely given that she's been writing and publishing since she was a teenager. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented is (at least in the first part) slightly more compelling; none of the above "delete" !votes appear to have made the argument that this record is broken on a regular basis, and I don't know enough about the subject matter to say one way or the other. (Full disclosure: I'm here because I'm basically the only WIR member writing about Japanese women; I saw one other Japanese flag, clicked through, and saw it was a BLP of someone who recently did something that made her famous. If anything, this should make me biased in favour of deleting the article, for upholding our systemic bias against dead women relative to living women and Japanese women who lived in Japan as opposed to Japanese women who live in the US, Europe or Australia.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:49, 23 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tampa Bay Tornadoes[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability for this 'future team'. The only references I can find online are self-published sources and there do not seem to be any reliable sources that contribute to notability. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far WP:TOOSOON to assume a very low level American football team that is more than year from maybe playing will meet WP:GNG. Definitely does not meet WP:GNG right now either. (Also, someone may want to take a look at International Arena Football League and Vermont Brew drastically lacking independent sources.) Yosemiter (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. WP:TOOSOON for this team.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG at this time. No prejudice to re-create if they actually form... and stuff...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Info in the article suggests a couple WP violations, namely WP:TOOSOON, WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL. Page can definitely be re-created when the team starts playing and when more information is discovered, but right now it’s too soon to be making this page. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:08, 19 March 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. The consensus is that it meets WP:LISTN. (non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of television actors who died during production[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT table of (some) actors who died while actively cast on a television program. "Effect on production" field inconsistently vague or detailed. Every individual actor who died during production of a television show not listed, and list is mainly (if not all) American television shows. All actors who meet WP:N have their own article.

There's no debate that individuals in the list meet WP:N; however, there are no sources about the topic of "television actors who died during production" treated as a whole. This would be better maintained as WP:CAT. AldezD (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list provides far more details than a simple category would, also there is no reason not to have both. An article does not have to be complete to exist. If you see anything missing, you can add it. Dream Focus 23:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 23:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With better references, the article will be just fine. Trillfendi (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many sources talking about these actors. WP:LISTN is satisfied. A category would not be appropriate in my opinion, as this is too trivial for a biography, even though it may be mentioned in the text. wumbolo ^^^ 13:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many sources on the topic: articles about how multiple shows have dealt with it [10], on-line lists [11], and even books like The Show Must Go On: How the Deaths of Lead Actors Have Affected Television Series. StrayBolt (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTN and is referenced. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, this is interesting and informative to our readers. Britishfinance (talk) 13:53, 20 March 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 page has been already deleted as G4 by Justlettersandnumbers. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Onumonu[edit]

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

This is the second time i am coming across this page. I think it was previously created under another name. It currently still fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. There's a mention of couple of awards all of which are not sourced. Possible COI. Lapablo (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:09, 17 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Singerman[edit]

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

Film editor with just one film (as well as one screenwriting credit) The only thing going for this guy is that he lived to be 100, but....that's it. Wgolf (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Film editors are rarely notable for doing such, nothing to suggest a change here, especially since we lack reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:25, 22 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Pickens[edit]

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

Okay this has to be a record-article is from....2003 (technically 2005 since that is when the redirect changed)! Anyway non notable actor who is basically a not inherited issue. Either delete or a redirect to his brother Slim Pickens. Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film appearance does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gagan Sharma[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized article about a musician, whose claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC are not properly referenced. The vast majority of the sources here are WordPress blogs, not reliable sources that can support notability, while the few that are real media are 3/4 short blurbs that read like press releases, and 1/4 a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself -- and exactly zero of them actually support the claims that either "Ferrari" or "Mahine" ever actually charted on any notability-making record chart at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat

You said this article is highly advertorialized, which part you think is advertisement? If we think like that then I believe no article in entire wikipedia is worth being on wikipedia. Few of the references I gave was from the biggest newspapers in India like Time Of India and from Daily hunt. If that is not notable then what else. This single have over million views in few songs which went viral, you can see views on youtube. He has songs on all biggest platforms in India, he has sung with few of the big singers, if that is not notable then what is?

Sumitpatelster (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Advertorialism" refers to the tone the article is written in — it is indeed possible to write an article about absolutely anybody who exists at all in either a neutrally encyclopedic or an advertorialized tone, but the vast majority of articles stay on the correct side of that line. This one, however, does not: see "was committed to staying on the right path, completing his education and working to help support his mother", "was inclined to music and singing from a young age", "kept his passion of learning music", none of which are things we should be saying in an encyclopedia because they don't represent substantive information that makes him more notable than other ambitious young singers.
Views on social media have exactly nothing to do with our notability criteria for musicians at all: a musician has to have a hit on an IFPI-certified national pop chart to pass NMUSIC's "charting hit" criterion, not a viral video on YouTube.
Having songs on "platforms" isn't a notability criterion for a musician either: the only "platform" that gets a musician over NMUSIC's "playlisted" criterion is a national radio network, not a streaming platform like Spotify or Napster.
Notability is not inherited, so people do not become notable just because they've worked with other people: either they have accomplished something themselves that passes NMUSIC, or they got nothing.
I already addressed in my nomination statement why the few references here that actually are media coverage aren't cutting it: they're all really short blurbs that aren't substantive, and state nothing about Gagan Sharma that would pass NMUSIC at all. And the rule on here is not that as long as a person has gotten his name into a newspaper twice, he's entitled to an article no matter how garbage the rest of the sourcing are: the rule is that all of the sources have to be reliable ones, and you can't use WordPress blogs or YouTube videos as references at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the information. Give me few days, i'll search for something like that Sumitpatelster (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat I searched gagan sharma top songs on google and got this Screenshot of my desktop. Can we consider this type of result as a proof of notability? (Just looking for guidance) Sumitpatelster (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, screenshots of Google searches aren't evidence of notability. Media coverage in reliable sources is what we're looking for. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because he is a on label, I am in favor of a KEEP, but page needs lot's of work and reformating of references, so if reformatted to make it look nicer, I would vote KEEP. Peter303x (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240505104559[reply]
Delete fails WP:SINGER, from what I can see, and WP:GNG. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON if his career takes off more. The article certainly needs a cleanup if kept. Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your inputs, I will work on the article to keep it cleaner. Its just that My mom is not well so I'm don't get time for editing much. Please give me some time, I'll work on it. Poojasharma20 (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Upcoming not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article needs cleanup but its certainly not the case of WP:TOOSOON, WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. It has a lot of labels on google, which clearly tells the notability of this artist.

https://g.co/kgs/ZgWZKS (Album : Ambitions)

https://g.co/kgs/S2sA6a (Artist : Gagan Sharma)

Poojasharma20 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:NMUSIC. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, no reliable sources + not notable enough QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:04, 23 March 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. National team recognized by FIFA and also per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. (non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen women's national football team[edit]

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

There is no team. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2019, I can find no evidence that the team is in existence. Sbalfour (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the official documents clearly state there's a women's team in existence, FIFA also claims they played six matches in 2002-03. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: FIFA doc recognises that there is a national women's "A" team (end of this doc). PamD 10:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Giant Snowman 10:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Just because the team is no longer in existence "as of 2019" doesn't mean that it wasn't in existence before, or that it's not notable. Remember, notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems legit. Peter303x (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240505104559[reply]
Keep per PamD.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I cannot find a single mention of them online, PamD's high-quality RS proves they do exist. Given the circumstances in this country, we should be mindful that this team/association exists in difficult circumstances so their lack of classical-RS is understandable. Britishfinance (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not "my" RS, but the one which has been in the article from its first move to mainspace in 2012 (at that stage it was ref 5, sourcing the statement "The teams were still around in 2009", referring to FIFA-recognised senior and junior national teams). It was still there, now as ref 2, in the article when it was proposed for deletion. I just took the trouble to look at the article and confirm what it stated. This article should never have been proposed for deletion: it's clear if you read the article and the sources that the team has existed, whether or not it still does today. "There is no team", whether or not true, is irrelevant. PamD 16:14, 22 March 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotuit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, relies on self-published links. Ineligible for PROD as it was prodded in 2006. SITH (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of passing the GNG or NCORP, company's long defunct. Ravenswing 18:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company evidently got acquired and liquidated. Not notable enough to keep for historical reasons. Sbalfour (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing suggests notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only primary sources (and press releases), fails all admissibility criteria Boislecomte (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject grandly fails WP:NCORP. Casual mess in a text can be perhaps be alleviated but not lack of subject's Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 23 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Bravo Invitational[edit]

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

Contested PROD--not contested with a series of reliable secondary sources, unfortunately. The article is basically an extension of the promotionality of the mother article, Eddie Bravo--the complete lack of secondary sourcing (and the few websites that have reported on it or published results don't make up for that) is a clear sign that this is just not a notable tournament/event by our standards. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article essentially consists of results with no indication of why this event is notable. There is a lack of significant independent coverage since almost all of the references are just links to results. Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 15:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough references to warrant this page. Creator obviously spent lot's of time in making this informative page. It is useful and notable info for the specific industry. Should be kept. Peter303x (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240505104559[reply]

Can you please indicate which of those references show significant coverage from independent reliable sources? I see lots of links to results, but no coverage that shows the article meets WP:GNG. Having lots of references is not a notability criteria if they don't help meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The nominator's comments about the promotional nature of this project should not be missed. -The Gnome (talk) 13:26, 23 March 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 Grenadier Models. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knights, Fighters, and Men-at-Arms[edit]

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

This is just one of many mor eor less similar articles, about gaming products which got a usually very short review in Space Gamer in the 1980s, and now have an article solely based on this. This specific product doesn't get attention in any other reliable sources available online, online some Pinterest pages, a few shops selling these, and some scanned catalogues from the company that made these.

Perhaps some general discussion is needed to see what to do with things like Traveller Supplement 11: Library Data (N-Z) or Personalities (Ral Partha), most of them will need to be redirected or deleted probably, but for now let's focus on this one article only, which seems to lack all notability. Fram (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Fantasy Lords. BOZ (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added Traveller Figures: Adventurers and Alien Mercenaries to this nomination, two other sets of figures from the same company with only an extremely similar source as well. Fram (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more: Imperial Marines. Fram (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more set of figurines, Soldiers of Fortune (Traveller), and a set of dice for crying out loud, Traveller Dice. Terrible. Fram (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those can all be merged into Grenadier Models rather than deleted. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Grenadier Models. A merge can be performed as well if people think its necessary, but the target article is a pretty big mess itself, so it would probably need some cleanup before any additional information could be merged to it in a practical way. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All clearly fail WP:GNG and I question the usefulness of a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:39, 16 March 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Covino[edit]

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

Article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENTERTAINER. Article appears to be in a bad state, with a promotional and non-neutral tone, possibly indicating that much of the article may have been written by himself. Upon looking into improving the article, I found that all the sources were either dead, about his girlfriend, a press release, a facebook page, and a video of his, which are not independent sources for notability under WP:GNG. Searching for information on him also does not bring up really any independent sources or much of anything for that matter. His twitter account only has 3262 followers despite being active. It is also very hard to find information on the many shows listed under professional career. His website is also dead. One of his current shows does have an article, Covino and Rich, but its sources are not much better, including another facebook link and a forum post from a fellow presenter. His television and video game appearences also do not seem to be notable and over-exaggerate his role. For example, for his hell's kitchen appearence as himself, the only mention of it I could find is a tweet of someone congratulating him for appearing in an episodes promo, and Covino stating he should get credit on imbd for the appearence. Overall, seems like a vanity article that does not pass notability guidelines. Meszzy² (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a frankly pathetic attempt at personal promotion that is dependent on social media sources, and much of it veers into WHO CARES territory, like the name of the flower girl at his wedding and how he recently paid off his debts. He's not just trying to further his career with this article, but craves personal attention because his Honda Civic is awesome. His radio work and the small amount of reliable media attention it has received is already covered at Covino and Rich, and that is more than enough. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very promotional tone that could be fixed, but heavy use of social media as sources and general lack of primary sources cannot be fixed. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did a little research in this guy, found more references and cleaned up page to remove unreferenced material and promotional content. I believe he meets basic WP:GNG. He is a famous Radio DJ/Host. I also found video documentary by LatinNation on Youtube that serves as a good reference to some of the content. The prior editors with DELETE vote should review this again. Peter303x (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240505104559[reply]
Delete. There are no adequate sources that can support notability, even post-make over. The general wretchedness of the text ("w/ the experts", etc) is not a factor but it surely does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 23 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lindquist[edit]

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

Subject lacks multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Lacks significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and there's nothing to show she's notable for any of her athletic accomplishments.Sandals1 (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My BEFORE turned up no results. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 15:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the references are not much, I found 2 additional good reference to add from http://sport.one and steamit.com that verifies the content that was already there. I believe she is notable in her industry. Google image search will also return many additional pictures and references. Prior DELETE voters should revisit this. Peter303x (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240505104559[reply]
Delete Not convinced completely by Peter's sources: while one of them can be used for a short stub, the other, Steemit one, is a pure blog (actually a social media platform according to the site itself even) making it unreliable to use, and still making the subject fail WP:GNG for a lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Nothing to find in my searches except for how to pay for her trainings. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A blog and youtube pictures/videos are not enough to show WP notability. I don't see multiple cases of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only thing that might count as a source is the sport.one article by someone who likes to make personal top 10 lists (Derek Jeter's top 10 girlfirends, 10 sexiest NBA cheerleaders, 10 most attractive female bodybuilders, top 10 hottest boxing ring girls, etc.), which is all this is. The author isn't a full time journalist nor is there any indication of editorial oversight by that website--and that's the best reference of the bunch. Papaursa (talk) 04:00, 23 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manjinder Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match. Only appeared at U19 level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCRIC, Google search does not find anything suggesting they would pass WP:GNG Spike 'em (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Bs1jac (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCRICKET. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything reliable on the subject, So per nomination QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:10, 23 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TeleChoice[edit]

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

Has not received the depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy corporate notability standards. SITH (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-running national chain that's been covered in the business papers for years. It is absolutely obtuse to suggest that coverage does not exist just because it's not currently in the article and someone couldn't be bothered looking further before forming opinions. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife, actually, I did do the usual searches and the only thing that came up that is independent and reliable that was in a major publication was this. I don't think it connotes notability; all big companies have squabbles with their customers. Just because something's big doesn't make it notable. So the onus is on you to provide evidence the the contrary. That is, assuming you can be bothered. SITH (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep Searching finds press release material, articles written by connected authors and minor mentions - none of that establishes notability. Happy to reconsider if other editors identify specific coverage that is helpful. Changed to Keep per sources listed by Unoc Gab4gab (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There is some independent coverage, but not a lot. There is enough to turn the current micro stub into a "proper" stub but that is about it, eg, optus and telstra relationships, one major customer stuff up (but due weight would not even manage a full paragraph), major sport sponsorship, and a couple of other things. Most of the coverage is just marketing stuff and I cannot see how in-depth or core could be achieved. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep a company that started in 1995, had 500 employees. I'd say it was at least a decent sized telecom carrier. I haven't looked much deeper than reading this article though https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/the-little-telco-taking-on-optus-20180501-p4zcls.html I'm not surprised it got nominated for deletion though, given that creator just created with the expectations of others to do all the hard work. Graywalls (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article cites no sources, but it's own. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Independence and significance of the cited resources shall be evaluated further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - As per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. If you look back through the edit history you can find a much more substantial article. Just one quick web search reveals enough sources to satisfy corporate notability standards, for example; [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Unoc (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's all about one event. SITH (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Graywalls. Mosaicberry (talk) 23:39, 16 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gifa inc[edit]

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

concern = no indication of notability. While references are given they are purely WP:ROUTINE noq (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA posting of an article previously rejected at AfC. The article describes the financial transactions around the company and its business proposition, supported by routine announcement coverage and blog posts, with no claim of notability. Nor are searches finding better than more of the same and penny stock speculation: fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP; not vsure what the article is actually about. Should have failed as AFC. Sbalfour (talk) 23:11, 16 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subway Serial Rape: Lover Hunting[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is unselective databases or not about the film in question. "Best Film at the Pink Grand Prix" is not a significant award as it's based on a fan poll. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Above characterization of sourcing appears correct. Also, these Translates are going to look very bad in my browser history :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination because subject fails WP:NFILM. For the umpteenth time, Wikipedia is not the place for exhaustive listings of random inormation. -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 23 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Starts in Augusta, Maine[edit]

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

This organisation does not seem to have attracted the depth of independent, reliable coverage required to be considered notable. Most of the sources in which the group is mentioned cover a different group named United Way which presented Fresh Starts with an award. The coverage is not of Fresh Starts itself, as evidenced by the source assessment table attached.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://getconnected.volunteermaine.org/agency/detail/?agency_id=82504	Includes sections such as "Who We Are" and "What We Do", appears affiliated.	For basic verification, yes. For claims of notability, no.	By virtue of affiliation.	✘ No
https://uwkv.org/Campaign-Awards-Recognitions	Source is by a group the article asserts to have given them an award.	Don't see why not.	The source does not mention "Fresh Starts" at all.	✘ No
https://www.centralmaine.com/2018/02/17/united-way-of-kennebec-valley-raises-record-breaking-1-66-million/	Appears unaffiliated.	Don't see why not.	Mentions Fresh Start twice, the majority of coverage is given to United Way, a group which gave Fresh Starts an award, not Fresh Starts itself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

SITH (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not indicate this is a notable local organization. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an apparently worthy organization, but coverage is all local. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and the nominator's decisive forensics. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 23 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StrategEast Westernization Index[edit]

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

Not notable PR-driven ranking to grab some passing headlines. Prod removed by article author. Renata (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article seems to be based more or less entirely on launch PR (I can’t read the Russian sources) and it all looks pretty thin. However these ranking reports only come out once a year so I wouldn’t expect continuing coverage since last April. In a few weeks’ time the second report will be due. If it is picked up and widely reported notability will be demonstrated. If not, not. Or maybe the ranking will be pulled and we’ll never hear of it again. Anyway I think in a month or so we”ll been a much better position to judge notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete at best, too soon, but searching does not reveal interest beyond the organization itself or routine republication of press releases. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 16 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Alvarez (television personality)[edit]

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

TV presenter I'm not sure if notable or not. The IMDB link does link to someone with that name, while the other is for a Home and Garden person that I'm not even sure if it's the same person or not. Wgolf (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources --Danski454 (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some sources - I will add them. A lot of content was removed from the article soon after it was created, which contained information about the TV shows she had worked on, including 'Smart Design', which the HGTV link is about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nimination since subject fails WP:NPERSON and WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have added some sources to the article. However, the only sources which have significant coverage (in The Orlando Sentinel and the Havana Journal) are both largely interviews, which are not considered independent, so she does not meet WP:GNG. She had one film in the Sundance Festival, but that alone is not enough to meet WP:CREATIVE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:04, 23 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Worlds (Texas Miniatures)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability (not in the article, not in the zero Google books results or the 11 Google hits[21]), and no possible source for a redirect apparent in the article. One capsule review in a minor magazine, that's it. Fram (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurers (Texas Miniatures) also nominated for the same reason. Fram (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a place to reprint product review capsules from a long-ago magazine. No other coverage found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:26, 16 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gatecoin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Previously PRODed by David Gerard, removed by IP editor. No sources besides routine coverage on cryptocurrency price movements and the company's closure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cab show my Gatecoin account to prove the information is 100% accurate, the only people wanting this removed are the corrupt people who ran Gatecoin and don't want the world knowing the truth about them. But rest assured everyone will know Aurelien, David and the rest if their names, we'll make sure of that so they do do such a thing again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.246.94.248 (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing you have to do if you want it to stay is to find actually mainstream WP:RSes that cover it - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@91.246.94.248: Look, we understand if you think something needs to be known by people, but Wikipedia isn't the place to do that. Contact news agencies or start a blog if you need to, but Wikipedia doesn't accept journalism, no matter how important it is to get word out there. Heck, there are even other wikis that do not have our strict notability policies. Once it is covered significantly by reliable sources, then a wikipedia article will probably be accepted. The notability criteria for organizations are especially strict and "covering it would be good" isn't really a strong argument. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my PROD - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet the relevant notability guidelines. Sourcing is WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-sourced article about a non-notable subject; created by a kamikaze account, "improved" by another, then capped by a third one. Hope the check clears, though. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 23 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of graffiti[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICT Graywalls (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#DICT refers to single articles that are only definitions. Glossaries of different topics are an established concept on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries and Portal:Contents/Glossaries. MarkZusab (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

neutral I may have misunderstood the meaning of WP:NOT#DICT. Nonetheless, the contents are poor and written like guidebook for taggers by taggers. Graywalls (talk) 05:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the article can be improved, adding references and rewriting the contents that need to be fixed. MarkZusab (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused about how Wikipedia defines acceptable glossary vs a miniature slang dictionary that is not allowed. I've asked the WP:NOT#DICT talk page. Graywalls (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDICT does apply to lists of definitions such as this. Ajf773 (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read it again; NOTDICT even specifically addresses glossaries as permissible. It has nothing to do with "lists of definitions", but with definitional material that is dictionarian and not encyclopedic in nature. If a page like this is deleted, it inspires the creation of stand-alone articles on key terms which are not themselves actually notable (in the stand-alone article sense WP:N is about) but which are within encyclopedic relevance per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, which results in a re-merge back into a list. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this is technically a glossary, how many articles on graffiti do we have to require this much detail? There are certainly terms that probably should be defined in content of the article on Graffiti, like "tagging" but I'm not sure about the rest. --Masem (t) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 105 articles that are categorized as "graffiti" and another 139 articles about specific American graffiti artists. As there are likely still more untagged articles, I am okay with having a glossary. --Knulclunk (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to fit the definition of Glossary perfectly. The graffiti article is already massive. To fold this glossary into it seems a poor choice. Additionally, there are are dozens of WP:WPGLOSSARIES that I personally will never need, but may be helpful to other users. Knulclunk (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While some specific entries are presently a bit WP:DICDEF, this is a surmountable problem. Various entries are already of a properly encyclopedic scope. This is a completely normal glossary-format stand-alone list article, though a bit under-developed. It's long enough already that merging it into another article as an embedded list isn't practical. Glossary articles are of great use when dealing with jargon-heavy topics (e.g. cue sports); if we lacked a glossary article (or a @#$*-load of dubious stand-alone articles), we'd have to explain in situ every single time we needed to use the field's terminology, which would be a) annoyingly brow-beating to anyone already familiar with the topic, and b) intensely frustrating for anyone reading multiple of our articles in the same topic area, seeing the same re-re-re-explanations of the same terms over and over again. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Glossaries of terms are well-accepted here. bd2412 T 15:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DICDEF, "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field...". See category:Wikipedia glossaries for many other examples. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – With the Graffiti article presently at over 105kb (WP:SIZERULE), qualifies as a valid WP:SPINOUT article. Also, per WP:DICDEF, "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason for deletion given. DICDEF isn't about glossaries, which is a perfectly viable article type. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Glossaries are valid Wikipedia articles.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:05, 22 March 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. Weak keep. Sources are probably difficult to find as the main language in the area is Odia and I have no idea how to search for material in Odia script. It is a degree awarding institute. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghanashyam Hemalata Institute of Technology and Management[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NORG. Typical private engineering and management college. I don't find any trace of coverage in reliable source.

It exists; nothing more than that. ∯WBG^converse 15:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to be deleted (about which I have as yet no opinion) then so should Ghanashyama Hemalata Institute of Technology and Management, because it about the same topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah;I've noted that. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 15:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to be deleted (about which I have as yet no opinion) then so should Ghanashyama Hemalata Institute of Technology and Management, because it about the same topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Delete System and cultural bias aside, there is no press that supports the article. Without that, both articles are simply advertisements and a means to get names into the encyclopedia without having to establish their individual notability. Rhadow (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not kept as a separate article then the title should be redirected to List of colleges affiliated to the Biju Patnaik University of Technology, rather than deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could merge some of the info to Biju Patnaik University of Technology#Colleges if there aren't sufficiently strong secondary sources to support the article(s). Dl2000 (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of colleges..... At best, a redirect.∯WBG^converse 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MY PREVIOUS APPEAL: DELETEProposed deletion|concern = Their is same wikipedia page related to same subject and topic, might confuse others see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghanashyama_Hemalata_Institute_of_Technology_and_Management also this wikipedia page is less informative then the link provided of above wikipedia article.

NOW MERGE :Agree with Phil Bridger, ∯WBGconverse, Coolabahapple, Dl2000. Rhadow to some extent. I think Ghitm 2008 version should be kept created 2008 , and this older one 2008 should be merged with the 2011 latest one

created 2011, with removing of more advertising like representation of the topic, which i also added without considering the terms of wikipedia so i apologyze for that.
Deleting is not the solution as its been 10 years, the old one and other is 8 years or so, its now a part reference for people searching for this place and it is perfectly displaying in search engine, and it is also getting good amount of visitor every month. This article can be improved by removing content that is against the policy of wikipedia.
Yes, the source is a great concern but why the reporters from forbes, times will visit this private institution ?? I think the souce See SN 33,..... (Bput - this website has good alexa rank 136,089, in India about 100,000, can be trusted) is a good source is sufficient for the existence of this instituition. And this aricle conetent can be reduced to only inform about this place and history.

Summing up,

Merge 2011 in 2008 verson of ghitm article Rocky 734 (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's your relation with the subject? ∯WBG^converse 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Winged Blades of Godric: i'am just merely connected it, i know that place because one of my close friend study there.--Rocky 734 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two articles. Accredited, degree-awarding institution, which we usually keep. Colleges like this in India are not part of the universities to which they are affiliated. They are separate institutions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray, why we keep these? Because, you like them? ∯WBG^converse 09:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's called consensus, established over many years at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! Another argument without any basis in policy -- that the history of an article (ten years) should protect it from deletion. If it is bad today, it was certainly bad when it was written. There are other communities in WP that use similar arguments, to wit, "I've never seen an article of category deleted. Are you telling me this is the only non-notable instance in the world?" The result is unreferenced detritus that distracts a reader from the quality that is WP. It is not the mission of WP to replicate subject websites and be a scratchpad for original research. The value in WP lies in scrupulously edited articles. The rest are free-riders -- like this one. Merge it or delete it, but get rid of it! Rhadow (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This AfD is messier than ~~(well, I won’t go there)~~ because people can’t stick to the subject to get this thing over with: keep or delete. Irrelevant comments don’t help the cause. What it comes down to is this is not notable. Trillfendi (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Necrothesp's rationale is correct - it it's an accredited, degree-granting institution, then yes, it should meet our standards. Guettarda (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to WP:SCHOOLRFC. Existence of a degree-granting institution is not an automatic indication of notability. References need to support it, which I believe is a standard not met in this case. Rhadow (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhadow are you saying this is a secondary school? It appears to be tertiary. Guettarda (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an institution that teaches to degree level, not a secondary school. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not assert that the subject is a secondary school. I assert that the situation is analogous. An institution that appears on a single list (not a press item that discusses the subject) is not notable. The alternative argument is that every degree-granting tertiary education institution is automatically notable irrespective of WP:NORG, a position with which I disagree. Rhadow (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should make your point without basing it on an RFC that was only about secondary schools. I have to ask this question, because it is the elephant in the room that nobody seems to be noticing, but can you give any example of an accredited tertiary college mainly attended by white people for which anyone has even considered deleting its Wikipedia article? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact -- but I forget the name or outcome -- a university in Southern California went to AfD. Sheesh, you're saying this is a matter of national or racial bias? No. I PRODded this Florida-based accredited university Okan International University. I have no idea who attends. Rhadow (talk) 20:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not accusing anyone of deliberate bias, but whenever a long-standing practice, such as keeping articles on accredited tertiary institutions, is challenged it's by people trying delete articles about Africa or Asia. No individual one of these deletion discussions proves national or racial bias, but the cumulative effect is that we hold articles about topics related to those continents to higher standards than we apply to North American or European topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rhadow. Your comment seemed odd, but this makes some sense. I still think tertiary institutions are different though. Guettarda (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Phil Bridger, you assert, "the cumulative effect is that we hold articles about topics related to those continents to higher standards than we apply to North American or European topics." I respectfully disagree. An article about a technical college in Canada or New Zealand based solely on its appearance on a single list would not make it past NPP. Rhadow (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any article about a degree-granting institution in Canada, New Zealand or any other Western English-speaking country ever being deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However merging duplicate articles about the topic by any editor would not be controversial, requires no further discussion. There seems to be consensus that this is a degree-granting institution, and higher than secondary level. We generally/always keep such. --Doncram (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There is not even a single independent and reliable source to establish notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both fail WP:CORP. No commentary, just NOTDIRECTORY|directory summary information. Accredited, degree-awarding institutions traditionally would be notable bastions of public learning, but not these days. Degree awarding institutions are little different to predatory profit obsessed businesses. A minimum degree awarding WP:STUB should include a credible independent review of what they do. Open to new sources that might justify a re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 19 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Cotton[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. Also fails WP:GNG; all references are routine. LTFC 95 (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per Soccerway, he has not appeared in any game between teams from fully-professional leagues, and thus fails NFOOTBALL. I cannot find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. No indication of notability. Leviv ich 16:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to pass NFOOTY, and I don't see him passing GNG - sourcing on him is rather brief and non-independent. Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 18 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Art Hate Week[edit]

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

Declined PROD, courtesy ping Northamerica1000. Fails WP:NEVENT. Turned out to be nothing consequential, the only independent coverage is the Guardian article cited. SITH (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think the nominator has it right here. WP:NEVENT requires persistence of coverage in order to show encyclopedic notability, and I'm afraid this one-off event wasn't very consequential beyond this Guardian article. We often nominate breaking news for deletion on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS – I think this is one case where looking in retrospect at the event, we realize it wasn't noteworthy enough for indefinite inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madhuri Desai[edit]

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

Subject does not meet any of the notability criteria of WP:NACTOR. The article states they have a single role to date; normally I would redirect the article to that movie/series in lieu of deletion but it's a red link. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the page for Madhuri Desai. She has had two major leading roles in TV serials- Yek Number and Pudhacha Paul- to date and has acted in a movie Friendship Unlimited-FU. She is also a growing Youtuber with more than 25K subscribers to her Youtube Channel- Madhuri Desai- and she acts in her Youtube channel videos and writes her own content. Some of her Youtube videos on her channel also have social messages on current topics for the betterment of society. I have provided appropriate references on Madhuri Desai's Wikipedia page. She can be considered an artist, actor, entertainer, creator. WP:ENT, WP:ARTIST or WP:CREATIVE. Your suggestions are welcome. All information is true. Please DO NOT delete the page. Thank you.Wikiusermumbai (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. I checked the cast listing for the Friendship Unlimited movie mentioned in the article, and don't see her listed in the cast, so evidently she didn't play a significant role. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG .Upcoming maybe be notable in the future at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently available sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. It's possible that the actor may be notable in the future, but not today. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- her role in the movie was not significant enough to be credited.^[1]^[2]^[3] Her TV stint is also not covered by reliable news sources. --- iamvardhana (talk)
Keep Seems to just scrape thru WP:GNG althought it appears to fail WP:NACTOR. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lannie Battistini[edit]

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

No substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The only claim of significance made for him in the article is that he was the keyboardist at a Grammy-winning performance by Olga Tañon, but I find no evidence that that brought him any note. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Largoplazo (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If there is notability here, it relies on the subject's involvement in Olga Tañón's "Olga Viva, Viva Olga" live album. However the named recipients of the award were the artist and engineers [22] so notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. A musician going about his business, but not enough for WP:MUSICBIO or broader WP:BASIC criteria for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no independent reliable source available. Reddragon7 (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The newspaper El Nuevo Día has this article about him and I believe 3 others: 2. Unfortunately I don't see the articles as I need a subscription.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The former link is to a "coming events" announcement in a local publication. These are considered routine and don't contribute to notability. Largoplazo (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he's influential and some theater in a Florida town is featuring his "unique" jazz and the Citrus county newspaper covered him in an article. https://valerietheatre.tix.com/Event.aspx?EventCode=1085305 --the eloquent peasant (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't contribute to notability. The former is another "coming events" link for a local theater. The latter link leads to a ticket seller, which is by no means an independent source; in addition, the fact that people find work in their jobs and that, in the case of performers, you can buy tickets to their performances also doesn't establish notability. Largoplazo (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We see an article on Lanni in a major P.R. newspaper Primera Hora. Article states he produces about 5 songs per year. https://www.primerahora.com/entretenimiento/musica/nota/lanniebattistinipresentasunuevaproduccion-539345/ the eloquent peasant (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another routine profile on the occasion of an event coming up at a local venue. Largoplazo (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Look again. Primera Hora has an extensive interview with him. Not what you said "another routine profile..." I also found just now another article in another major Puerto Rican newspaper, El Vocero, https://www.elvocero.com/uncategorized/con-nueva-casa/article_fde2ec91-f44d-5a94-882f-e70464c64f87.html --the eloquent peasant (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are generally held not to be independent sources since they consist of the subject talking about himself. Further, if the paper routinely interviews performers only as they appear on stage locally and otherwise never talks about them, then it's routine coverage. The El Vocero article? Half a sentence isn't significant coverage, as notability requires. Largoplazo (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the Primera Hora newspaper article establishes he has notability outside his involvement with Olga Tañon. El Johnson (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The basic notability guideline requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give more participants an opportunity to evaluate the sources presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm honestly surprised that this keeps being relisted (actually, I've been doing AfD too many years to be surprised at all), given that the relistings seem a clear example of headcount-over-policy. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with notability standards should know that casual mentions do not satisfy any of them. Articles consisting solely of interviews of the subject do not satisfy any of them. Single-sentence "articles" do not satisfy any of them. Coming events announcements do not satisfy any of them. I have no idea upon what basis any editor can claim "It seems he's influential," but the subject plainly does not meet the GNG, and certainly meets no SNG. Ravenswing 09:02, 17 March 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. Concerns over sourcing are particularly well-taken here ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing resource management[edit]

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

This looks like a WP:NEOLOGISM that has been created, replete with marketing jargon about "aligning people" and providing "solutions", via a single source. The article has already been briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and doubts were cast regarding its notability. Am following through with that concern and nominating for deletion as promotional spam. A loose necktie (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep: Comment: The article has been in existence for over 12 years. About two weeks ago I had cause to wikilink to it (or maybe something similar ~~I forget~~ and related to an article I won't mention) and noticed it had no references and added one. More fool me. Been scummered all over WP:RSN that source has. Now the good people bringing this here and and at WP:RSN seem not to have noticed the same IP making this disruptive edit, then undoing it as reMove Inane ProMo jargon With AbSuRd capiTaliZation, not to mention this promotional edit before raising it here after wandering across it and recommending deletion and and egged on deletion here. Okay there is no proof these are the same person and they are year apart. But talk about co-incidence. Okay I suspect it started as a WP:NEOLOGISM but I now have 100,000+ google hits and I'm reasonably minded usage has waned ... but that is not a reason for delete. And what about isbn 978-9081330510 ? ... why was this not picked up at WP:BEFORE and mentioned ? Given the recent reference addition templating would likely be a better solution than dragging immediately to AfD. But an article improvement is likely needed more than deletion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I'm noting a Gartner report from 2001, Gartner definition, Deloitte uses it], This work by S. Doyle .... and more from where they came from. Its quite reasonable for people to ask Wikipedia what the term means.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: the human being writing this message right now is the same person who made the RS post, and the edit with "capiTaliZation" in the edit summary. However, I am not the same person who made the earlier edits to Marketing resource management. (When I log on from a new location, I often check the contributions of the IP address there out of curiosity; that's how I found the article, in its sad state.) --75.102.233.171 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion was not allowed to run for 168 hours, in my view this was not best practice and contravenes WP:NotEarly, sometimes its the last hours or even a tad beyond people make comments that are helpful pre-relist. As per any time this happens at AfD which in the past has disrupted my RL I request the good faith relister who does a lot of good AfD work does not handle AfD relists for this article again. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete:~~neutral~~Comment: I've struck my speedy keep about as no longer applies. The article is tainted and stalked by an IP from the Windy City. The good faith reference I added do it to try to improve it from no sources to one source is positively cursed. I found it here. Purged from Wikipedia in what I still allege was a fail to follow procedure by Chetsford/Athaenara and blocked by discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18 by Sandstein+TonyBallioni+Cryptic ... Not to mention backdoored at WP:RSN by WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259#CRM Magazine (destinationcrm.com) to AfD. With all this this incarnation of Marketing resource management is doomed and the paid editor of Aprimo is free to promote DAM and remove traces of MRM. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted as pure WP:NEOLOGISM any good faith attempt to create a draft coud be speedied. While the current incarnation is tainted (I'd accept a delete current incarnation no prevention against a good faith replacement) I'm not happy to blanket ban against anyone who followed. The article beyond the first sentence is rubbish. It's inappropriate for me to do anything while I have a delete in place so I've moved to neutral and might try article improvement. DW&WR can wait.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark – I've been as patient as I can possibly be, however, if you intend to keep weaving complaints about the failure of your Deletion Review proposal into every possible topic on Wikipedia for the indeterminate future – no matter how tangentially related – I really have to insist you stop pinging me into them. I'm in the middle of two GA reviews at the moment and really just don't have any more time to devote to this silliness. The fixation you've lately demonstrated on this long ago passed the threshold into the realm of disruption. In the most collegial way possible I'd suggest you try to find other subjects or activities on WP to interest you before a less collegiate editor suggests a TBAN. Also, I'm afraid I generally can't comprehend the substance of most of your comments (though 75.102.233.171 seems to have a similar style of writing to you and I can't understand what they're saying either, so perhaps it's just me). Chetsford (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a clear WP:NEOLOGISM problem, per nominator. From my research, it's an entirely made up term and is being used as promotional material. Strong hints of COI here. I don't think this article contributes positively to WP. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced neologism. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selective merge to marketing operations management, an overlapping concept. If Gartner devoted a report to this topic 18 years ago, the topic is neither unsourced nor a neologism. It shows up in a Gbooks search in multiple sources. It's closely related to marketing operations management and is treated as a synonym in some sources. The page itself received 1,266 views over the past 30 days, suggesting it is a real search term. I haven't done enough in-depth research to tell if there is sufficient sourcing out there for notability. Gartner is behind a paywall for me. But a redirect and perhaps selective merge of sources and a couple of sentences to a closely related topic is a reasonable alternative to deletion per WP:ATD for readers wanting to know what this topic is about and where to look for further info. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The version of the article at the point of nomination was this Old revision of Marketing resource management. As at 10:00 10 March 2019 UTC the version reflects where I have done some restructuring leaving most of that underlying content unchanged (some has been removed) with some additional sources and templating. I intend to apply further improvements however I will be using a series of edits over a few days and have elected to use a sandbox for that purpose rather than mainspace under construction as interim edits may be drafts and inconsistent. To state the obvious many comments above be applicable to all versions of an article with this name, some will pertain to the version at time of comment. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article as now stands following improvement is rightfully sourced and sustained coverage and coverage in depth sates WP:NEO in terms of retention. That is not so say article isn't free of issues and in need of content improvement but those are not AfD matters per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'd be highly concerned about a redirect/merge given the improvements to this article to the current ~~Market operations management~~ Marketing operations management (which I removed 2 references from yesterday leaving an MPM! source). While ultimately I might support a good quality redirect or merge properly done I can't see an obvious target and such matters are best discussed outside AfD. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADVOCACY for a current neologism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is reasonable to assume that is directed at me, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me not to comment outside a reasonable timescale if elseone has not done so. If it is so directed then rightfully a WP:TBAN needs also to raised. But advocacy may apply to other major content contributors also. Marketing Resource Management has been in use for about 20 years or more now. It has been regularly used in product names by various competing manufacturers, though my perception is use of the term is waning and may be becoming historic. It seems reasonable people may wish to look it up on Wikipedia to see what MRM is/was about. The article at time of nomination was in my opinion (and from other opinions above) a mess (though I had added a reference to it a week or two before as a side activity when trying to understand MRM). I ended up reworking the article top to toe, though I did use the original as a starting point and while I used an intermediate sandbox I put edits back in one by one so I hoped my reasoning can be followed rather than a one shot copy-paste. There may be apparent views I am promoting MRM over Marketing Operations Management (MOM) and some edits I made may reasonably lead to that conclusion. These would include removal of MOM from the lede of the MRM article, removal of references from the MOM article and questioning the remaining reference, and taking action and commenting on an editor who made an unsigned essayed opinion on the MOM talk page of the article who had been promoting his own company elsewhere. Basically one issue I have with merger at this time is that the suggestion MRM=MOM has been in Wikipedia for about 10 years and *some* later sources are using Wikipedia as a source for the assertion. I have a feeling MRM was before MOM but will place no bet on this. While I'd welcome a merge discussion I strongly feel the MOM article would need cleanup first and also strong sources identified first that support MRM=MOM (they probably exist); these are best done outside AfD (and I am not volunteering). In the event MRM is deleted MOM, EMM and likely others on Template:Marketing operations will need to be examined, that may need to happen anyway. Indeed nearly anything marketing possibly needs careful neutrality scrutiny as these are the people aiming to sell one the Emperor's old clothes. In overall context this article is now reasonably neutral and reasonably descriptive and not trying to explicitly align people. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:49, 20 March 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. Well there's certainly consensus that at least some of this material should be kept somewhere! While I think it was nominated in good-faith (I'd imagine the merge !voters would agree) the rationale was certainly lacking. I think the merge-ers and the keep-ers are generally in agreement: there's cleanup and improvement needed. I think the arguments for keeping the current location are stronger, especially as this is worked on; this could be a candidate for a merge down the line if the article merits it, but for now it seems consensus prefers this is kept as a separate article. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killer whales in popular culture[edit]

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

I wanted to delete this page because it seems unnecessary and poorly written. Thenabster126 (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please could an admin tag this as a 2nd nomination as there was a previous nomination in 2010 which was closed as KEEP. I’m not sure that the topic is significant or important but if it is, this article does it little justice. It seems a fairly random grab-bag of stuff rather than a thoroughly researched and coherent presentation of a topic. Mccapra (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very selective merge of a few items to Killer_whale#Relationship_with_humans. This is indeed a grab-bag of some relevant stuff (almost all already included in the section in the main article), a lot of irrelevance (Phoenix Wright, my aunt Fanny...), and some random general natural history paragraphs. I'm surprised this stuck around so long in this state. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should this page be deleted? killer whales do indeed play many roles in popular culture, its an interesting subject, i vote to keep it SpaceMusk (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SpaceMusk: See WP:GNG. In short, the article lacks at least three non-primary sources which are specifically about "Killer whales in popular culture." Sources specifically about killer whales (but not in popular culture) and sources that are about popular culture (but not specifically about killer whales) do not add up to sources specifically about "Killer whales in popular culture. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge Excessively detailed and unnecessarily specific examples. Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. There are a reasonably large number of fictional depictions of killer whales to examine. bd2412 T 03:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Killer whale#Relationship with humans, if indeed there is anything reliable enough to be worth keeping and not there already. The section is detailed, well-structured, well-cited, and well-illustrated, which is more than can be said for this sorry article. I would not oppose the whole section being made into a Killer whales in culture (not just pop. culture) article, and the existing long section being reduced to a well-cited summary, but that article would not be anything like the current one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92, Chiswick Chap or rewrite completely. Mosaicberry (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Mosaicberry that this needs a complete rewrite. But SpaceMusk is certainly right that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, and a satisfactory exploration of this topic would certainly overburden Killer whale#Relationship with humans. To demonstrate this, I have added a further reading section to Killer whales in popular culture citing six academic studies that substantially discuss killer whales in popular culture. Alarichall (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I agree with bd2412 and Alarichall . My preference would be expand and improve the article and to change the format to the style used in Mermaids in popular culture . Unoc (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep With more sources, like bd2412 said, the article could be kept, but I would not oppose a merge, but considering the high interest in expanding the article keep still seems like the right choice.Garlicolive (talk) 14:55, 23 March 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 WP:PROD Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Liberal Catholic Church[edit]

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

Cannot find sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability. David V. Barrett (26 May 2011). A Brief Guide to Secret Religions: A Complete Guide to Hermetic, Pagan and Esoteric Beliefs. Little, Brown Book Group. p. 59. ISBN 978-1-84901-811-1. mentions its founding but it is only a passing mention (a single sentence), not significant coverage. This conference paper mentions it was founded in 1999, but that's all it has to say, again not SIGCOV (also, it starts with a request not to quote from it without the author's permission, so I don't think we could use it even if it discussed this group in extensive detail.) United States. Internal Revenue Service (1997). Cumulative List of Organizations Described in Section 170 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. mentions the existence of an organisation by this name being registered as a religious group with the US tax authorities; again, that isn't significant coverage. That's all the independent reliable sources I can find. Given the above, I don't believe WP:GNG is met here. SJK (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no sources at all. There are, apparently, a number of separate denominations in the Liberal Catholic movement and this is, apparently, one of them, but without significant coverage in reliable independent sources, I don't think we ought to have an article about this one. In addition, the citation to the Cumulative List of Organizations above probably could not refer to this church, since it was published in 1997 and, according to this article, this denomination was founded in the UK in 1999. I suspect the citation referred to a different denomination with a similar or identical name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This strikes me as a miniscule splinter denomination. I think we should either tolerate an article surviving or find a target where it an other similar movements can be briefly merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With small churches claiming apostolic succession there can be considerable overlap between them, as titles become part of the fun--why just be a bishop in one church, when you can also be a cleric in a another at the same time. Some of these churches have no laity except for family and friends of the clergy, and no church buildings except for specially designated rooms in people's houses. This doesn't make it non-notable per se, but at some point it becomes a lot like the whole titles of nobility thing. The term for this overall phenomenon is Episcopi vagantes, and some Episcopi vagantes also hold titles in various secular knighthood/lords/ladies orders. This church appears to have current clergy-roster overlap with Liberal Catholic Church International. Possibly it isn't really a splinter, but more of a spin-off. If you wanted to merge it, look at List_of_independent_Catholic_denominations. Before deleting or merging it you would properly need to individually google each clergy-person's name and figure out how much cross rostering there is with other similar denominations. Also, look for pictures of laity, Sunday-School, etc., and whether the pictures appear to be from inside a house-like building.

There is not necessarily any distinction between the Episcopi vagantes and bona-fide splinter group. Just as Herbalife (e.g. Formula one shake mix) seems to have morphed from being a pyramid scheme in the early days to a legitimate Multi-level marketing organization, it could just as well turn in to a pure scam again should its business sour. It is that way with these sorts of organizations-- an aspiring cleric can join to get in on the action, and then make something of it, or not. Some use their clerical status to perform weddings and other ceremonies, or be a chaplain in a nursing home even if they can't round up a congregation. Sometimes clerics put their classical language knowledge to use by teaching at a secular organization. So this can complicate notability determination.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:25, 18 March 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. Mz7 (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Oja[edit]

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

Actress/model who I can't find ANY notability at all for. Article has been here for an amazing 13 years, and nothing to add to it. Wgolf (talk) 04:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect/Merge with any of the related movies. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks both significant acting roles and significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 23 March 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Trapson[edit]

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

Zero sources in the article; I looked for more, using all of the names referenced in the article, and for the album mentioned in the article, but found no substantial coverage in independent RS for any of them. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Got some coverage.★Trekker (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @*Treker: - could you possibly expand on your thoughts above? The article currently contains three sources - his artist e-card (marketing material, not independent), his own YouTube channel (not independent), and his page on the Apple Music store (not independent). I looked for independent, reliable sources, but drew a total blank - if you were able to identify some coverage, it would be great if you could provide links here for evaluation. Thanks! GirthSummit _(blether) 16:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately got some coverage is WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE, an argument to avoid :) No, unfortunately there is an absolute dearth of persistent, independent coverage in reliable sources: A few blogs, and less literature. Fails the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 12:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than self-promotional and fan sites, I found a single interview (and I'm not sure of the validity of that site). Schazjmd (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a website devoted to cannabis-related culture, so no, I wouldn't say it was an RS. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't catch that, thanks @Richard3120: Schazjmd (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. -- Begoon 00:55, 18 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radcliffe Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIN. The league in which it plays Greater Manchester Cricket League does not have its own page and is not one of the ECB Premier Leagues. Such secondary sources that I can find are passing mentions in the local paper. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The club is notable according to WP:CRIN: it was a member of the Central Lancashire Cricket League. Peter James (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radcliffe, Greater Manchester#Sports if not notable (where it is already mentioned). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 March 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. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIN. The league in which it plays Greater Manchester Cricket League does not have its own page and is not one of the ECB Premier Leagues. Such reliable, secondary sources that I can find relate to different Clifton Cricket Clubs. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The club is notable according to WP:CRIN: it was a member of the Central Lancashire Cricket League. Peter James (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Yes, at present the club meets WP:CRIN, though given its recent creation and lack of history to develop a meaningful article, merging to the Central Lancashire Cricket League seems reasonable. StickyWicket (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clifton, Greater Manchester where it is already mentioned if not notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City West Housing[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable, secondary sources that deal with this organisation in-depth. Such sources that I have found relate to Salford, England. Fails WP:GNG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some easily findable references include:

Pyrmont history
Daily Telegraph
Power Housing Australia
Property Observer
Third Sector
The Conversation
multiple SMH

Coverage is across a range of publication types, across government and industry, and general media, and is sustained. Aoziwe (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 16 March 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict (Sy Smith album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete - Doesn't meet the mandatory criteria mentioned by WP:NALBUMS. The only reliable source (Billboard) mentions the album, but it does not review the album in a positive or negative rating. It does give a very small list of the album's producers and that's all the source is good for. Again, there is no point in having this article separate from singer's article. Horizonlove (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 14:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The nominator, HorizonLove, has gone to town on Sy Smith albums, nominating some for deletion multiple times in a flat refusal to accept community decisions. See also the two nominations for Psykosoul. As for this album, Conflict, see the first AfD from just 4.5 months ago in which HorizonLove refused to accept evidence of notability to the point of failing to even see the evidence presented (note his/her last comment in the discussion). The result of that AfD was "no consensus to delete" which I don't think was accurate because the only reasons for deleting were from HorizonLove. Now see this current second nomination, in which HorizonLove has presented the exact same reasoning with no acknowledgment of what was discussed last time. This second AfD should be closed as a completely unnecessary rehash of a past argument that the nominator refuses to accept. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: When the two users from the previous deletion discussion voted to "keep", it seemed based on popularity and bias towards the singer. However, their vote and comments implied that if the page remained, they would make edits to ensure that the page passed WP:NAlbums. There were a lot of unsourced information in the article which I removed as per WP:RELIABLE. The "Critical Reception" content was completely WP:COPYPASTE and that should have been removed quickly. And I have searched for reliable sources for this article, but it is not notable as was stated in the opening argument. Horizonlove (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 16 March 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Tarpeh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. H-index of 4. scope_creep^Talk 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being listed in one of Forbes's many annual lists is not notability; does not pass NPROF. Reywas92^Talk 02:56, 17 March 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. Leaning towards Keep Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Tel Aviv rocket strike[edit]

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

This reads more like a news report, and with no casualties, I fail to see how notable this will be in a week or longer. Andise1 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Draft:List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2019, once that hits mainspace. I agree that it's doubtful that this will have enough coverage to meet WP:NEVENT. ansh 666 03:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. That is precisely what that list (and its predecessors in years) was created for. Debresser (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Ansh666. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough 'meat' for its own article.50.111.50.240 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list (once the list makes it to mainspace) and keep until then --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging a reviewed article with 1500 views per day into a declined draft makes no sense. It fails WP:COPYWITHIN if it's deleted per WP:R2, and it fails WP:MERGE. This article has twice as many characters as the declined draft, so it would make more sense to merge the declined draft into this article instead of the other way around. With regards to the actual argument, this still has WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE e.g. [23], and per WP:RAPID should not be deleted (at least a merge should be considered, or even a redirect). wumbolo ^^^ 11:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleaerly notable (unlike short range strikes which are not). Wide international coverage, diplomatic ramifications, and RAPID applies. Probably will have LASTING - these heavy rocket launches are rare (also during the 2014 war - there were only a handful). Merging to a draft does not make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to concerns that merging with a draft doesn't make sense, once this material is merged in, the draft article would unambiguously become eligible for mainspace (IMO, at least). Also, I don't see evidence of continuing coverage beyond the 17th, only 2 days after the conclusion of the event and now 2 days ago. ansh 666 07:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing coverage - [24][25][26] and even Kim Kardashian will not go to Israel because of the shelling. Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all opinion pieces in local media. The international media forgot about this days ago past its typical routine coverage. ansh 666 18:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Today's international coverage : Do Israeli Jewish Lives Even Matter to the Media?; Mom of four: Here's why I turned my bomb shelter into a playroom.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the post-game analysis has begun: Last week’s rocket fire on Tel Aviv reflects schism within Hamas.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

21 March: Why were rockets fired toward Tel Aviv?.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID and WP:SIGCOV that has been worldwide and intense - with diplomatic activity and impact that cannot be fully assessed so soon - which is why RAPID applies. This was NOT the sort of ROUTINE, short-range rocket attack that is appropriately merged into a list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE today: Amos Harel: "After the launch of two rockets at the Tel Aviv area during a meeting of Hamas leaders and an Egyptian delegation, the visiting intelligence officials provided an explanation that was convenient for all sides: The rockets were fired by mistake during maintenance work. Talking to experts, it turns out that this is possible. So is this what really happened?..."; plus discussions in several other publications today. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as WP:PROD Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of indoor volleyball World Champions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of indoor volleyball World Champions

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

To be named a world champion, one has to actually win the World Championship. Although there are 3 major international volleyball events (including the World Cup and the Olympics), all 3 are different and only the World Championship gives the title 'World Champion'. The others entitele a World Cup winner (not a World Champion) and Olympic winner/gold medallist, respectively. The article has no reference, there is no such definition conducted by the International Volleyball Federation (FIVB), and overall has no credibililty whatsoever. Additionally, a Wikipedia page where this distinction is made can be found at List of indoor volleyball world medalists. This story shows the list of all major volleyball medallists. Hence, also discussed in the Talk tab of the page, the article List of indoor volleyball World Champions should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YavorDimitrov (talk • contribs) 20:59, 8 March 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 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find it very hard to stomach an article with no references, because someone could have made up the whole thing. I can't even determine whether most of the info is probably true. Who says? This is supposed to be a scholarly article. Sbalfour (talk) 20:58, 18 March 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.

^ Matkari, Ganesh MatkariGanesh; Jun 2, Pune Mirror | Updated; 2017; Ist, 10:51. "FU (Friendship Unlimited) movie review: Akash Thosar's film fails to hit the right chord". Pune Mirror. Retrieved 2019-03-18. {{cite web}}: |last3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^ FU: Friendship Unlimited Movie Review {3/5}: Critic Review of FU: Friendship Unlimited by Times of India, retrieved 2019-03-18
^ FU: Friendship Unlimited (2017) - IMDb, retrieved 2019-03-18

[1] Matkari, Ganesh MatkariGanesh; Jun 2, Pune Mirror | Updated; 2017; Ist, 10:51. "FU (Friendship Unlimited) movie review: Akash Thosar's film fails to hit the right chord". Pune Mirror. Retrieved 2019-03-18. {{cite web}}: |last3= has numeric name (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

[2] FU: Friendship Unlimited Movie Review {3/5}: Critic Review of FU: Friendship Unlimited by Times of India, retrieved 2019-03-18

[3] FU: Friendship Unlimited (2017) - IMDb, retrieved 2019-03-18

[1]

[2]

[3]