Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 March	18 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradhan senadhipati[edit]

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

unsourced since 2006 and the article is merely about nepali translation of Commander-in-chief. –2A0A:A541:7239:0:DF2:49D2:C23F:73B4 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. As for my own view, I'm no speaker of Nepali, but assuming nom's information is correct, some form of redirect seems preferable to outright deletion. --Finngall ^talk 23:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unsourced since 2006 is not a valid rationale for deletion. Per WP:NEGLECT: Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion that is not being worked on very much, or has not been edited by a person for a long time, and thus might not be in very good shape. This does not necessarily mean that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; it may be that the topic is obscure or difficult to write about. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. Remember that there is no deadline. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Abecedare, given that there are no sources to support the claim. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we deleted all unsourced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A misconception might be "realistic potential for expansion" but notability is a main criterion for inclusion. Since I can assume that many readers or editors may not have the ability to access Nepali sources then someone needs to prove it. "Unsourced since 2006" would be valid on two points, 1)- it is unsourced, and 2)- it has flown under the radar for a long time but now this has been contested. A "PrettyPleaseWithACherryOnTop" keep reasoning is also ineffective. This issue involves the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. An argument that an unsourced article "might" improve Wikipedia, as a possible reason to "ignore the rules", and some editors seemingly alright with unsourced articles, does not currently enjoy broad community consensus so we generally follow the policies and guidelines. If an editor wishes to find at least one (more of course preferable) reliable independent source (not a primary only) and add it then ping me and I might consider changing my mind as well as possibly even others. Otr500 (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pradhan as Pradhan senapati (field marshal) already does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot verify current contents. Even the Nepal army website doesn't support the claims, and searching for online sources in Nepali language didn't find anything relevant. At a minimum, the article is outdated since monarchy was abolished in Nepal in 2008; at worst, it is spreading misinformation. Abecedare (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note too that the article creator, to whom all the current content traces back to, was banned from wikipedia for creating false and fabricated sources and content. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sourcing, and no one else has been able to either, apparently. Maybe it's real, but maybe it's a hoax and without being able to confirm, there isn't much I can say in support of keeping it. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:22, 21 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the New Drug[edit]

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

Despite the sheer number of ghits news and otherwise, I can find no evidence this meets inclusion criteria. Specifically, there are a ton of passing mentions but there is almost nothing substantial. The article is also rife with POV pushing (pro-this org.) Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete – mostly just mentions in passing related to a single event. The only in-depth coverage is in the form of opinion-type hit pieces in student newspapers, such as St. Norbert Times and The Racquet. The article itself is rife with POV-pushing and promotional content, and I can't find enough coverage in reliable sources to improve this to our standards. Fails WP:NORG. Bradv🍁 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source that was used Bradv just deleted, so, yeah, POV pushing continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.36.29 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care, and it is irrelevant if you are biased for or against this organization. At the end of the day, there are not enough WP:RS for writing such article, so the organization does not pass WP:N. Discussions in local newspapers are not enough. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the article is now an advertorial. Severely lacks WP:FRIND sources. The only positive claim supported by independent sources is that the organization has produced a video, which was spread by mainstream media. Not enough for having its own article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organization, every source is primary or about Elizabeth Smart and not the org itself. SWL36 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable entity. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, does not meet requirements.Wikibhw (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that User:Wikibhw has made no other edits other than this !vote. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Dotrice[edit]

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

No substantial change since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kay Dotrice. Perhaps the redirect should be protected to ensure the consensus is respected but the talk page should be unprotected to encourage discussion. SITH (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kay Dotrice's IMDB profile shows that she was credited in 1960s TV productions as Katharine Newman, Katherine Newman, and Kay Newman. Searching the British Newspaper Archive for Kay Newman, I find many theatre reviews from the 1950s-60s (appearing in repertory companies with Roy Doctrice, so it's definitely her). It appears that she began using her married name as her stage name in the 1970s, when she appeared in Crossroads. I will add information to the article, and then assess her notability. (The previous AfD hardly had consensus - there was only one !vote apart from the nomination - and besides, 5 years later, more sources are available online, giving a clearer picture of her career.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. The proper action here is to do more research to add to the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I will hold off !voting "Delete" pending user:RebeccaGreen's stated intended action and check on notability. This is not a BLP but one obituary source does not advance any notability and IMDb is NOT a reliable source especially as an external link. Otr500 (talk) 05:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. RebeccaGreen has found a lot of coverage and this is now a really interesting article. Tacyarg (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Rebecca Green for WP:HEYMANN upgrade.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per E.M.Gregory. Lapablo (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:RebeccaGreen. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:02, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Socialist Party of Venezuela Youth[edit]

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

~~No apparent notability, article is based only in primary sources.~~ Jamez42 (talk)

Withdrawing nomination. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spanish Wikipedia has an extensive article on the organization. A Google News search indicates many reliable sources [1] It is the youth wing of the ruling party of a medium-sized country. That alone should indicate that there are sources and sustained notability.--TM 23:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above argument Emass100 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The parent body United Socialist Party of Venezuela is a registered political party with a WP article. We have WP articles for many official "youth wings" of registered political parties (see categories I have added to this article). As well as above new refs, there are en-refs for notbaility that I will add to the article. Britishfinance (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TM. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:02, 24 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socorro Herrera[edit]

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

Non-notable minor actress; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Page was previously deleted per a deletion discussion (see original AfD), and subject has not received significant coverage since that discussion. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. This is a pseudo biography. There is no normal biographical information such as date of birth/death so I have no idea if the article is a BLP. The one source provided contains "Watch: Ben Affleck Pays for Catastrophic Actions in ‘Triple Frontier’", I missed mention of the subject, and IMDb is not a reliable source. Otr500 (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very few passing mentions, WP:NACTOR and WP:RS.

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

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

The result was speedy keep w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination with a valid argument for deletion. The question was raised as to whether or not this page qualified for speedy deletion under CSD G10. After examining the article I concluded it does not. No other argument for deletion being presented I am closing this per WP:SK #1. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Scott-Samuel[edit]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bigwig7: Queried speedy delete, alleged to be an attack page Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion was proposed by a friend of Dr Scott-Samuel. It is intended to be balanced and if anyone has constructive suggestions for improvement I'd be pleased to implement them. Bigwig7 (talk) 09:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Molester's Train Housewife: Madam is a Pervert[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 in passing, unselective databases, and / or WP:SPIP. "4th Best Film at the Pink Grand Prix" is not a significant award as it's based on a fan poll. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a random non-notable film. If the biggest claim to notability is Fourth place in

meaningless award that confirms no article Legacypac (talk) 02:40, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moneygall Aerodrome[edit]

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

I suggest to remove the article Moneygall Aerodrome because

there certainly is no aerodrome at present, though one may presume there has been one
the one reference that is offered seems to be a one-person-initiative, and little kept up; I doubt its reliability— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan olieslagers (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yup it no longer exists. See here. When it did exist it looks like notability was doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And the additional input which Mccapra provides. Whether or not the subject here still exists seems pretty clear. It does not. (A small grass strip does appear aerial imagery from 2005 but is entirely ploughed through (and a house built) by 2011-2013.) Whether or not the subject here ever met WP:GNG guidelines or the advice proposed under WP:NAIRPORT is less clear. That said, personally I'm not seeing it. As far as I can see, this was a small private landing strip that wasn't subject to coverage beyond a few directory-style listings. I can't see how it meets the inclusion criteria. Guliolopez (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FWIW, it isn't listed in the Irish Aviation Authority's list of aerodromes at [2], and it's even marked as closed on List of airports in the Republic of Ireland. About the only way it could meet the criteria on WP:NAIRPORT would be if it had a notable history, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing of lasting encyclopedic value and very few (if any) RS's available. Garretka (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly doesnt appear in a list of licensed aerodromes at http://iaip.iaa.ie/iaip/IAIP_Frame_CD.htm if it did exist in the past and reliable sources could be found then it could always be re-created but I suspect it was no more than a grass strip with very little history. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it has no presence on recent aeronautical charts, and after checking regional maps, nothing appears to have been there in a few years, without a notable history that it doesn't have it doesn't qualify WP:NAIRPORT MegaFlyCraft (talk) 12:56, 21 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) 21:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Caspia[edit]

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

No indication of any independent coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to meet any criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. The article claims that a remix by the subject was put into rotation at Kiss FM Cyprus, but it's uncited and I can't find any other source that confirms it. I was not able to search sources in Greek, so it's possible there's something out there that I missed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom as not notable. An artists soundcloud page does not advance any notability and if there are reliable independent sources, out there somewhere in the world , that can not be readily found, then someone interested in keeping the article, would have to prove it. Not every name with a self-source deserves an article. Otr500 (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedied. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources available for this subject. Lapablo (talk) 09:38, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Best Jnr[edit]

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

Subject is only notable for a single event as per WP:1E, the reality TV show Absolutely Ascot. His appearances in My Big Fat Gypsy Fortune and Rich Kids Go Shopping were minor by comparison. Article should potentially be moved to a cast list for the show, if an article is ever created for it. Him being the son of Alfie Best isn't a point of notability also. UaMaol (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 18:02, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opt in[edit]

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

Poorly written article, unencyclopedic. Apparently imported from Wiktionary, which doesn't seem acceptable. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wiktionary entry is sufficient. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect – I agree the article in its current form is not good and needs to either be cleaned up or reverted back to the Wiktionary redirect. I will comment that we have Opt-out, Opting out, and Opt-out (politics), and because of this is seems reasonable that we should have an "Opt-in" article as well, even if it's just the Wiktionary redirect. (Side note: Opt-in redirects to Opt-in email; I would clean this up to redirect to to Opt in but will wait until the outcome of this deletion discussion.) —danhash (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: As it stands there is nothing here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and certainly not a vehicle for unsourced dictionary entries. HOWEVER, I went to check a reference on the article above this (Alfie Best Jnr) and bailed out when the page went dark and I had to "opt-in" to receive cookies to view the page, I could go to "manage cookies" but the end result would have been to accept the cookies (opt-in) or maybe add an exception that is still an "opt-in" so I bailed out. This is a form of forced direct marketing campaigns that I disdain and a possible reason why coverage might be interesting. I would think and support possibly changing the title of Opt-in email to Opt-in services, Opt-in options or something like this, to cover all forms of related branches. The only reason it wouldn't now fit is simply because of the title but there is content that would fit (the email part). If this is covered under a title I did not come across then coverage or a redirect there might prove beneficial. I would like to see some coverage of this and content would be relevant for a subsection in HTTP cookie#Setting a cookie but that article does not appear to me to be for the general reader. Anyway, this is just something I ran into and maybe a plausible idea. Otr500 (talk) 15:58, 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Lou[edit]

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

Subject of article does not desire to be part of the project and is of very minimal notability Medmyco (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. Subject is notable in multiple ways (book authorship and reviews, Canada Research Chair, Fellow Am. Stat. Assoc.). This article was created as part of a project (still incomplete) to improve coverage of women in statistics on Wikipedia by adding articles for all female ASA Fellows. Deletion would be a setback to that project. The Strickland affair should be a lesson on the danger to the reputation of the whole encyclopedia when we overzealously delete articles on notable female scientists. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Subject seems notable enough to me given the info in the article. But if she has requested her article deleted, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is relevant though not conclusive. Tacyarg (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She’s a full professor and research chair. No question she’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Strickland case is a red herring. That BLP was strangled at birth by one editor who failed to follow Wikipedia guidelines. It never got to AfD, and would certainly have been kept by consensus if it had. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#3. Lou is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject's own wishes are not controlling on whether Wikipedia is allowed to maintain content about them or not — our rules dictate what stays and what goes, and the people our articles are about get no special veto rights. Yes, there are sometimes edge cases where we do respect the subject's wishes, if their notability claim is soft and not particularly well-referenced, but strictly speaking that still has more to do with whether the article conforms to our rules or not, rather than whether the subject wants an article or not. A person who has a strong and well-referenced notability claim gets kept regardless of their personal wishes, and a person who has a weak and poorly-referenced one gets deleted even if they want to be kept. So the fact that she "does not desire to be part of the project" carries no weight; the only thing that's relevant here at all is whether her notability is objectively "minimal" or not. And no, a full professor and Canada Research Chair is not of "minimal" notability. Bearcat (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Also, is the deletion request by the article subject public anywhere? For example, if the request alleges serious BLP violations or mistakes, those should be addressed before just closing this as keep on purely notability grounds. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I generally agree with the trend of the discussion, and it roughly summarizes my counsel to the subject, Wendy Lou. However given her distress about the matter I promised to make an effort. My request was predicated on:

Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete.”

I concede that at least minimal notability is achieved simply by being a full professor at a university (although speaking as a similarly credentialed professor myself, I find that de facto less compelling). Even so I promised my friend Wendy I’d give it a try. Medmyco (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If she is distressed about the article, are you at liberty to disclose any specific concerns about the article content? If there's anything we can do to address her concerns short of deletion, I'm sure we would be more than happy to do that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prof. Lou definitely passes the academic notability guideline, so ordinarily, there wouldn't be an issue at all. Furthermore, looking over the page content, I'm having a hard time finding anything objectionable; with the possible exception of her birth year, all of the information reads like a department profile or a conference speaker's bio blurb. Perhaps, as suggested just above, knowing more specific concerns would be helpful (if the nominator is at liberty to disclose them). For example, I would support protecting the page if Prof. Lou is concerned that it will be vandalized. Regards, XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to (claimed) wishes of subject. Notability is not overwhelming enough for keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, especially if the subject wants the article on her gone. (Is this true?) While it is true that we reserve the right to dismiss a person's request for a Wikipedia page if that person fails to meet our notability guidelines, we should respect a person's right to remain unknown or be forgotten if they are not linked to any major events or persons. Furthermore, while she basically meets notability guidelines, readership has thus far been minimal. (I added the "annual readership" template to the article's talk page.) Recent spikes are likely due in no small part to this very discussion. Nerd271 (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the birth year, which to my thinking could possibly cause distress or perceived ageism to a female professional as it is not something "widely published by reliable sources" and no longer appears in the source that was referenced anyway, per WP:DOB. I'm frankly torn - my personal desire would be to have her request fulfilled, as I am completely sympathetic to having privacy, yet a neutral article about someone recognized for "remarkable collaborations in the biomedical and healthcare sciences" in an esteemed position, particularly for women, is arguably something inspirational and of value to select Wikipedia readers. Perhaps she could give a statement privately to an admin as to her reasoning. LovelyLillith (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She definitely meets WP:NPROF and therefore is a WP BLP; we can debate the degree of notability, but her qualification is not in doubt (which I think is the consensus view of this AfD). No problem with removing specific details from a BLP if it causes distress (as we did on Dhammika Dharmapala), but we would be creating a dangerous precedent (e.g. a WP:WENDYLOU), if a publically known and photographed figure (she is a Prof in a major university [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]; even her salary is public knowledge [11]), could have a bland BLP of public information deleted because she does not like it, or it causes her distress? She has her own LinkedIn page? [12] How do we progress after such a point? We have many "controversial" BLPs on WP whose subjects would also prefer it deleted if given the option - how would we respond to their future requests post WP:WENDYLOU? Britishfinance (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note also the reply of the volunteer response team (WP:OTRS) on the Dhammika Dharmapala Talk Page in response to that subject's desire to delete their BLP; they basically told him that if the material was publically available, then there was nothing they could do. I think if Wendy Lou has other issues with the BLP (versus all her other public bios per above) that we are not able to assess, then AfD is not the right process for her, it should be via the volunteer response team. Britishfinance (talk) 15:30, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Haocun[edit]

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

Actress who falls under too soon, so far has had just one role. Now maybe someday she will qualify for a article, but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, so far she has had 0 role. That film hasn't been released and nobody knows how much screen time she got, if at all. There's virtually no biographical information anyway. Timmyshin (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with no released films or television series on her filmography Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just WP:TOOSOON for now. Lapablo (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree withTimmyshin's explanation and it is WP:TOOSOON. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:10, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accor Asia Pacific’s Business Traveller Research[edit]

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

This article seems to have somehow got through AfC in 2011. It’s about a standard business survey run by a hotel chain and I guess the purpose of the article is promotional. The survey got a bit of coverage at the time apparently but IAbot can’t recover any of the links. Run of the mill corporate news ruff and no real notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

White Frame[edit]

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

Non notable. No independent reliable source. ToT89 (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yup. This is just an organisational promotional piece without notability based on on independent sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete because unfortunately WP:NCORP is now quite strict.--Theredproject (talk) 01:52, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Oliver[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00107029.htm Hergilei (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:36, 11 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? 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Finishing 28th out of 31 at the junior world championships is not enough to meet WP:NSKATE. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Paleev[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00107029.htm Hergilei (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 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? 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Finishing 28th out of 31 at the junior world championships is not enough to meet WP:NSKATE. Papaursa (talk) 02:52, 21 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Menchaca[edit]

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

Another older article on an actor that is solely sourced to IMDb. Subject does not meet WP:NACTOR since he only played either minor parts in TV shows like iCarly, or parts in shorts and otherwise non-notable films. I could not find any coverage of him under any of his names in IMDb. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Mitchell[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP about an actor of dubious notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though he possibly was a busy actor with a number of minor parts, he doesn't seem to have had numerous major roles to meet WP:NACTOR criteria. Sionk (talk) 14:03, 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? 14:59, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich James[edit]

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

Actor fails WP:NACTOR since he only landed small parts in film (Tuxedo Dandy #3, Nazi Agent, etc) and one-episode parts on TV. Article is unsourced apart from IMDb and I could not find anything else for it to cover WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 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 14:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Spine Surgery[edit]

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

Other than the journal's own self-proclaiming of being peer-reviewed, no other sourcing indicating it is. Being from a publisher notorious for producing non-peered reviewed publications, not sure this passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any reliable sources not affiliated with the publishing company, and being listed in PubMed along with tens of thousands of other journals is not an indication of notability (trivial mention only). There is also no impact factor for this journal in this list, which in accordance with WP:JOURNALCRIT, strongly suggests that this journal is not frequently cited and is not influential. Hence, the lack of citations and mentions means that WP:GNG is also not fulfilled. ComplexRational (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor-in-chief seem an Associate Professor of UNSW [13]. But it seem there is not much source to prove the GNG notability of the journal, nor it was cited by many other articles. However, i am not in this field, i am undecided on keep or delete or not. Matthew hk (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect back to AME Publishing Company, as before. Fails WP:NJOURNAL. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, restore redirect, protect. Peer review is just a process and whether it is any good depends on the editors and reviewers. In the present case, the publisher has a reputation of weak (if any) peer review. However, this is rather irrelevant to the question of notability: journals with good, stringent peer review can still be non-notable. What clinches the deal here is that this journal is not indexed in any selective database and that there are no independent sources. The journal claims to be included in PubMed, which is correct, but that is only an access platform. PubMed includes all journals in MEDLINE (which is a selective database) AND those in PubMedCentral, which includes almost all OA journals in the life sciences (a notable exception being OMICS journals), and therefore is not selective at all. The current journal is in PubMed because as an OA journal it isin PMC, it is not in any of the more discerning databases to which PubMed is the access platform. In short, this journal misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect back to AME Publishing Company. It is probably good for people looking into this journal that we have something about it which a web search will return, but we have nothing really to say about it other than who publishes it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's an undeclared COI here (and if the article creator edited as part of his job, undisclosed paid editing, too): the article creator (who is editing under his own name) works for the same institute as the editor-in-chief of the journal. I don't suspect anything nefarious here, just being unfamiliar with WPs rules on COI/PAID, but thought it was worth mentioning. I have warned the editor on his talk page. --Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editor-in-chief, according to the CV in UNSW website and in this wiki article, was Associate Professor Ralph Mobbs, while the article creator, was Timanchoy. I don't object the accusation of Timanchoy is a paid editor, but it seem Timanchoy (may be actually spells as Timan Choy? Tim An Choy? ) is not equal to Ralph Mobbs by common sense on spelling. That user created parallel draft under draft title Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery (JSS) and then it was moved to Draft:Journal of Spine Surgery, as well as turn this article from redirect. The user also created NeuroSpine Surgery Research Group, which Dr. Mobbs is a director of NeuroSpineClinic. It could only suggested that someone is being paid to promote the journal and the clinic/research group, but not enough information for Dr.Mobbs using alias to create wiki articles himself. Matthew hk (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matthew hk - I don't think that Randykitty was insinuating that Mobbs was using an alias. If you go to the page on the Clinic's website (found here), you can see that there is a research assistant by the name of Wen Jie Choy, also known an Timan Choy. Since he works for the organization, there is definitely COI, and one might argue defact paid editing, since he is paid to work for the group. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then it isn't the same thing of the edit-in-chief wrote the wiki article himself, but the wiki article creator had oddly the same name with Dr. Mobbs' co-worker/employee. As well as "institute" is ambiguous, UNSW or Prince of Wales School? So it end up is the clinic. Matthew hk (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew hk, you're misreading my comment. I did not say that the EIC wrote this article under another name. What I said was that the editor who wrote the article works at the same institution as the EIC, as Onel5969 explained. --Randykitty (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then restore redirect and lock it down. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear All, I wish to clarify my position. I was a student of both A/Prof Ralph Mobbs and NSURG. Although I am a research Coordinator, I was not paid by NSURG to do so. It is voluntary work. The reason of writing this both articles up is because I have learnt a lot and benefited a lot from NSURG which I think it deserves a mention in Wikipedia. Also, NSURG is a non-profit organisation, hence, there is no money flow within. In regards to the Journal of Spine Surgery, yes I admit the journal is new. Hence there is limited indexing and still currently lacks an impact factor. However, given that it has been around for many years, I was told by the editor-in-chief (A/Prof Mobbs) that these are currently in application progress and JSS will soon receive more indexing and an impact factor. This journal is a peer-reviewed journal and nothing dodgy is going behind the scenes. I sincerely hope my explanation clarifies all confusions. Timanchoy 11:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still WP:COI. Matthew hk (talk) 16:49, 21 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. Sandstein 13:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toolihalan[edit]

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

"Toolihalan" gets a passing reference in various sources, including "Toolihalan Road", but no press and no reference to "Toolihalan Village." It fails WP:GNG in English. If someone can find a reliable press reference in another language, fine. Otherwise it has to go. Rhadow (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please see WP:GEOLAND - “Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.“ We don’t require the same standard of multiple reliable sources for small places as we do for, e.g. actors or companies. If you’re concerned about specific content that isn’t sufficiently well-sourced you’ve tagged them as requiring further citations so we can wait to see if those appear. But there’s no case at all for deleting the entire article.Mccapra (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons given above. Alarichall (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could not agree with WP:GEOLAND more. Look through the references through. There is no indication this is a legally recognized place. After that, it fails WP:GNG. DESiegel might want to weigh in.Rhadow (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listed as a town on the district marriage list. One of the weakest WP:V votes I've ever cast, but I'm convinced. Some searches for "Toolihallan" also appear. SportingFlyer T·C 04:36, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZionFelix[edit]

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

PR or marketing related →Enock4seth ^(talk) 11:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:39, 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. Sandstein 13:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of active premier league goalscorers[edit]

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

Typical WP:Listcruft and WP:OR. The list never able to complete as it requires active removal of "non-active" footballer. Also , the inclusion criteria "40 goals or more " is an original research. Also may be WP:NOSTATS. Matthew hk (talk) 12:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the list fundamentally different from List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals, which 100 club was defined by media. Matthew hk (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW 2. The correct title should located in List of active Premier League goalscorers. Matthew hk (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – It's an encloypedia for articles of long-term value, not a topical stats source. Jellyman (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per NOTSTATS: Unencyclopedic and subject to constant changes making it a 'topical' or 'news' entry; which, as noted above, is not what Wikipedia is typically about. Eagleash (talk)
Delete - WP:NOTSTATS / WP:LISTCRUFT, the related and well-defined list above is far better. Spike 'em (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know why you want to delete it. It is distinguish list, there is no list like this one since all the other lists include the players of all time. If you like List of footballers with 100 or more Premier League goals, I can do similar to this one but expanding it. Sjaatoul (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjaatoul (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is many guidelines for new user to read. Start from WP:GNG, WP:NOSTATS, WP:OR, WP:V may be? Matthew hk (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. – Pee Jay 01:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all deletes above, and WP:N notability is not temporary - a list of active Premier League Goalscorers is continually out dated, hence it is temporary. To keep would mean accepting lists from all years and periods of not only the premier league, but all professional leagues ever. Highest goalscorers over all time, or golden boot winners are notable, but this belongs on a fan cruft page or someone's personal webpage.ClubOranje^T 08:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 09:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As this is original research and will always be out of dated each week. That and also the fact that this page doesn't look like it's a professional article also is a big no no. Not Homura (talk) 02:35, 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Khan (Pakistani Anchor Person)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Linked in and youtube aren't suitable sources too. Ajf773 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just social media and primary sources. Cabayi (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - quick search on the subject hardly yields anything substantial, neither anything properly cited in the article. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:29, 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 redirect to Night photography. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscape[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary; not sure if this can reasonably be expanded into a proper article, though perhaps there's an argument for having a soft redirect to Wiktionary? (Though I see from the edit history that a soft redirect has been undone several times already.) PC78 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Night photography. Qono (talk) 16:31, 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 withdrawn, speedy redirect to Shub Kola. No point keeping this open for deletion when there's a better article to redirect it to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoubkela[edit]

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

Can't find any non-Wiki-mirror sites confirming this place exists. The NGA GeoNames database is negative for both spelling variants given in the article, and the Persian name as well. No book mentions of either name, not even trivial ones. I know it's not 100% reliable, but there's no Google Maps results either. This has been unsourced since it was created in 2008 by an editor with exactly one edit, and in the complete absence of sources, I'm tempted to believe it was a hoax. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the problem is the article creator used an odd transliteration into English. Searching the Farsi name it does indeed show up on Google maps as ‘Shoub Kola’, so it’s not a hoax. There are plenty of hits for “شوبکلا” so no doubt it exists. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Shub Kola. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per فرهنگ2016. Mccapra (talk) 18:53, 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. As expired WP:PROD Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue Rose[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable band. Fails WP:NBAND and there is no coverage of them in independent, reliable sorces to clear up WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found an obituary for one of the band members ([14]) but not much else. Fails WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 12:28, 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football players considered the greatest of all time[edit]

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

This article is against all Wikipedia's guideline. In very big short: It is perfect WP:Hoax which has multiple other issues such like WP:Weasel etc.. I have started discussion in various places to correct this article (for example here, here or here. Me and other also users reported this page plenty times to administrators that the page is very often vandalised and require better security (+ asking about warning for vandals by short blocades). As result that this page still even is not securited (admins ignore all my reports and engagings) I have to say: there certainly appears to be very strong ownership issues around these parts, daring to even question anything here is not worth the resulting indignation. @Santasa99:, @Blue Square Thing:, @ClubOranje: @GiantSnowman:, @Matilda Maniac: - You all have agreed each other that this page should be delted. What do you think about my general points and comments on other pages about this article? Dawid2009 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely arbitrary choice of subject experts, should also include 19th century players, should include players not written about much in English. But all of that would verge into original research. If the article is kept, it should be cut down to the essentials, which is the "See also" section that mentions other people's lists. Those may not be any better than ours, as the whole thing is subjective, but we shouldn't pretend our own WP:SYNTH is more authoritative than those expert-curated ones. —Kusma (t·c) 11:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such a pity as a huge amount of effort has gone into this article but it is a case of WP:OR / WP:SYN. I would support a new article that chronicled "the most notable lists" of the "Greatest football players of all time" (i.e. only notable lists, and each one reproduced faithfully and kept separate from the others). Such an article would be titled differently as "Lists of association football players considered the greatest of all time", to clarify that even a single highly notable list, could never be considered definitive (it would be a POV-Fork). Britishfinance (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should look like: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States; very different title, very different content, and not OR/SYN. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - the article is skewed based on how much effort people are going to put into looking for sources, particularly when significant number of primary sources being used are not actually articles, lists, or any significant reliable source but instead isolated tweets with no context (or little). The addition of the "count" of sources is particularly problematic levels of synth as it has been significantly skewed to modern sources. I wouldn't even use that kind of sourcing on their primary articles, preferring actual reliably published material. Koncorde (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on (I don't believe it) WP:OSE grounds: we do tend to keep these sort of articles on the flipside, and this one is well-sourced. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_automobiles_considered_the_worst, List of films considered the best, List of films considered the worst, Category:Lists of worsts. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a significant difference between the articles as presented. The worst cars list in particular is not actually a list as much as a series of entries on multiple vehicles through hiatory and likely would qualify as an actual article. There is no denial that the creation of an article about the subject of Greatest Footballer might exist or should exist, but that a list of footballers (particularly in its current format) is not being met. In addition the comment about "well sourced" for this article must ignore that the significant proportion of sources are twitter, and by people of no significant knowledge or reputation, nor presented in context (it is unclear if they have changed opinion, what date or time etc and requires significant upkeep and maintenance for people's subjective opinions). A few may hold up to scrutiny, most less so.

A fair point. There aren't many Twitter references - using the find function brings up only eight of over 100 - but the article needs cleanup. I'm in favour of something along the lines of WP:TNT, but I want to make the point: even if this gets deleted, I don't think its deletion should preclude someone from trying to write a better article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem with a future article that chronicled the most notable lists of "the greatest footballers" (they are out there); however this article is not such a list. It fails basic WP:PAG (WP:OSE is an essay, not policy); if this article wasn't deleted, then we should drop WP:OR and WP:SYN for sports. If someone did an article like this on greatest U.S. Presidents, it would get deleted as WP:OR. What this article should look like is this: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Britishfinance (talk) 09:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This gets discussed in pretty much every sport. But tighten up the criteria. Agents and club presidents are hardly ever unbiased, plus there should be a sizable number of supporting votes/opinions (one is definitely not enough). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We already have this type of article for sport people what you are talking about (see: Comparison of top chess players throughout history) but if we decide create smilar article for soccer players we should do it from start point (for example in sandbox for the wikiproject). Criteria for experts could be based on this one source but frankly this type of article for soccer players would be very very much harder than it seems be (for every other sport, even team it would be much easier). How do you explain fact that Magico Gonzalez is a player wiedly compared to Pele and Maradona but he never played in any good proffestional club? And how do you explain fact that Magico Gonzalez is idol of Diego Maradona meanwhile Maradona in vulgar way mock Cristiano Ronaldo? It is proof why Wikipedia should not going to be focussed on the recentism and even forking of other lists would make no sense (Magico Gonzalez is not listed in none of these lists despite fact Maradaona complemented him dozen times). This list is biased speciffically due to fact some old players (outside Maradona and Pele who are also popular in social media after FIFA Player of the century event already) get reputation only in old book sources/scholarships, not in Internet sources; for example this list do not include important Di Stefano's teammate from South America who is considered by some as better than Pele; Di Stefano get only one notable reference where surprinsgly Eusebio give him better reputation than for Pele and Garrincha.

Beyond that this list has been so absurdly buthered by pople who make personal favouritism that it list look like very strong ownship. Semingly the article seems be partly sourced but really this is simply hoax based on WP:OSE. Calling this very poor article "sourced" for this subject actually is amusing Dawid2009 (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as pure opinion piece, no matter how many 'experts' are cited. Giant Snowman 08:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could see a justification for such an article if it was based on national/international polls/surveys like the film one linked above, but one based largely on the opinions of individual people, often of no great importance (no offence to Santiago Formoso, but he seems to have been a relatively run-of-the-mill player, so I'm not sure why we should give any weight to his opinion of who the greatest player was) isn't sustainable IMO.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is titled as the players CONSIDERED to be the greatest. By definition it is a recording of opinions. No editor is claiming that any of these players are the greatest. They are merely citing the opinions of others to claim that people consider these players to be the greatest. If taken in that respect, there should be no issue with this list, as it clearly states that it is a list of players who are considered by others to be the greatest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercors63 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article feels more like a Reddit article on greatest players; disparate POV sources (some not even encyclopedic). WP:PAG like WP:OR and WP:SYN are part of what separate WP from online site and blogs. This article should be deleted/WP:TNT'ed and replaced with something like this: Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By definition it is a recording of opinions - that is quite true, but as it stands it seems that anyone's opinion is considered valid. If Tony Cascarino did an interview and made a throwaway comment the best player of all time was his former Gillingham team-mate Dave Shearer, would that be appropriate to include here? Of course not, but as it stands it would be valid content for this article, which is nonsense (although he was a good player :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, looking at the category, "Lists of sports superlatives", this appears to be the only one that could be seen as "subjective", i'm also confused why there aren't more like this for each of the sports eg. greatest players for cricket, baseball, all the football codes etc, etc, is it that there are problems with having this sort of article? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Opinion piece, Not encyclopaedic. The article is entirely subjective, the so called experts are not experts, they are random players, managers and occasional commentators. Not one of the 'experts' has any sort of qualification to back up any claim. Belongs on someone's homepage, or Reddit or Tumblr page. ClubOranje^T 14:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:FIXIT. The Independent: Pelé has been voted the greatest footballer of all time, Sky Sports: Messi? Ronaldo? Pele? Maradona? Who is the greatest of all-time?, Daily Mirror: Big debate: Where does Lionel Messi rank among the greatest footballers ever?. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fix what ecactly? It's an opinion piece full of random people's opinions. All I could possibly do is add my opinion since the greatest of all time is not even listed. At least I am a Sports Scientist focussed on football so thère there might be some sort of basis of selection albeit unencyclopaedic. Non of these commentators have even seen half the candidates, and most footballers played in a different era. Which is the best fruit...Apples or oranges? It's a bollocks article designed to reduce the value and credibility of Wikipedia. ClubOranje^T 05:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're totally missing the point. Lists have been published in the media. Whatever the current state of the article, that satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE: "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article should remain.Sadsadas (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we're an encyclopedia, not Buzzfeed to make ratings of everything. That's in addition to the method of determining experts being unsalvageably original research, there's just no way to pull a list from more than one source and have anything resembling a consistent, non-OR definition who's an expert and who's not; I've seen enough football, can I be an expert too? In such case, I vote for Arjen Robben because all those CUTTING INSIDE MEMES! Max Semenik (talk) 06:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subjective, ill-informed opinion piece. Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. If the verdict is to delete, also note that there's a List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time and a template titled "Greatest sportspeople". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "See also" section of your NHL article (e.g. 100 Greatest NHL Players, The Hockey News' Top 100 NHL Players of All Time), is what the NHL article "should" be a chronicle of (i.e. each notable list, listed separately); as structured, this NHL article is also WP:OR/WP:SYN and should be deleted. We are an encyclopedia, not redditt. Britishfinance (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly a mash up of WP:OR and WP:POV. In other words WP:SYNTH Not encyclopedic whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SYNTH. The one who creates pages (talk) 13:55, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small matter of programming[edit]

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

This seems to be a dictionary entry based on two small entries in esr's Jargon File and the IBM Jagon Dictionary. There is a book with the title "A Small Matter of Programming" by Bonnie A. Nardi, and this book is being frequently mentioned by other publications, but neither the book nor its mentions seem to be mainly about the term itself. Worse, the term seems to be used in non-ironical ways in some articles, like http://disrupt-africa.com/2019/02/kenyas-brck-partners-facebook-to-simplify-mobile-network-deployments/ -- contradicting the whole point of the Wikipedia article. I think this is mostly original research, and possibly even a citation loop based on the age of this article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - other sources include an entire column in Programming Pearls, Second Edition - see https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/programming-pearls-second/9780134498058/ch05.html. Just the 2 paragraphs visible without logging in make it clear that SMOP is used ironically --DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it is OR. I have heard the phrase several times in my career in the UK and Europe. scope_creep^Talk 11:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "I have personally heard this phrase used" the essence of OR? DS (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Basing an article on what one has personally heard is OR. Basing an opinion on whether something is well known, in an AfD, when the article itself is appropriately sourced, is what we should be doing, and not something that it is appropriate to complain about. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that this phrase (namely "Small matter of programming") can be relatively regarded as an applicable/suitable phrase, and since there seems to have pretty sufficient related sources --in the internet--, as a result presumably it is better to be kept; but it would be better if the provider of the mentioned article add more reliable sources to that. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's definitely a long-attested phrase, and the sources discuss it as a phrase, rather than merely using it and leaving us to infer the meaning from context. I pushed the Jargon File citation back to the 1983 version for history's sake. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Computer scientist and Professor Bonnie Nardi wrote a book that expanded on the term Small Matter of Programming. Have added this to the article and tidyed it up. Britishfinance (talk) 14:02, 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. Michig (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Asif[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has not played in a fully professional match nor for a senior national team and therefore fails the notability guidelines for footballers on Wikipedia. He also fails the general notbaility requirements of Wikipedia as he has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Straight Red (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easy WP:NFOOTY fail. SportingFlyer T·C 09:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, and apparently NFOOTY as well. Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big fail of footballers' notability guide. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 14:56, 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]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:43, 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. Sandstein 13:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Beaulieu[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD deletion. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify He's apparently been an unused sub dozens of times now in a major international football league. Could become notable at any point. SportingFlyer T·C 09:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - On a MLS squad (top-tier league). There is some coverage - he possibly passes GNG on his college playing + coverage of (not yet playing) in the MLS. Draft should be preferred over delete here. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he had knee surgery recently and is expected to be out 3-6 months. [15] I think drafts are kept six months (?), and it's unlikely he will become notable in the next six months. If he comes notable after he returns, we can undelete, right? Leviv ich 05:34, 24 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 keep. WP:SK1 — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaratkaru[edit]

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

Does not have proper reference for last two paragraphAjnabh (talk) 05:57, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t think I understand this nomination. There seem to be plenty of sources cited, including for the final paragraphs. Mccapra (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why though? There are plenty of reliable sources, and there doesn't seem to be any sourcing problems for the last 2 paragraphs. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but restore Draft:Jaratkaru, which has the history of the article. Sourcing is fine. Nominator needs more experience and should please refrain from nominating articles for AfD. Vexations (talk) 21:11, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sidetrack Films[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE located no in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Doesn't meet the basic inclusion requirements for companies. Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Landless[edit]

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

Another old page with questionable notability. Former teen star who has an amazing 2 roles, with just 1 of them being a film-but a small film and he has not acted since. Wgolf (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT. Landless fails all the criteria here. I have seen some articles talking about him, but not enough to be considered notable really. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has appeared in one notable film which doesn't pass WP:NACTOR --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet again Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Arturo Abreu[edit]

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

No claim of notability per WP:BLP, also it has no article links to his work of major art shows which he did from 2016-2018. lacking reliable sources coverage as well. Sheldybett (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not covered in mainstream press of at least a regional interest. The style smells of general promotional intentions and I am getting a general sense that sources are scavenged to justify what the proponents want to present rather than writing about subject around high depth coverage in high quality sources with intended audience base spanning regionally or wider.Graywalls (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC). dunno, maybe the cumulative impact of so many blogs, small online zines, grants.... notability still looks marginal to me, but I'm gonna back off without opining further.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources that show that his work has been the subject of critical attention. Vexations (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is still minor, non-bluelinked websites. User:Vexations, if you would bring the 3 best sources that you regard as WP:SIGCOV to this page and ping me, I will reconsider. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I have for now. I don't see a requirement in SIGCOV that the publications must have their own article, only that they are reliable and independent of the subject, which I think is the case here. FWIW, I have no connection to the subject whatsoever, and before I noticed this AfD, I had never heard of Abreu. Vexations (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bluelinked sites are certainly not required, but bluelinking does make it easier for editors to sort out WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

revisited, still skeptical. Many of the links are to websites. I clicked one that I could identify, Vulture, a site run by New York Magazine for arts coverage, A ‘Retrospective’ for Emerging Artists in Bushwick’s Former Pfizer Factory, a retrospective for emerging artists is amusing, and it looks good, except that it's kinda PRIMARY since: "says curator and artist manuel arturo abreu". If you organize a group show, and include yourself as one of the artists, and it gets covered in one of several online sites affiliated with a notable magazine, does this support notability?

I also recognized The Stranger (newspaper), but it's just an events listing. possibly not evenan edited list of listings [16]

Then there is the fact that the bio details are sourced to the Academy of American Poets, which is exactly as exclusive as Facebook.

This looks like mere PROMO. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, those are exactly the ones I didn't add. I did add: http://thefanzine.com/thinking-beyond-colonial-gender-a-review-of-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/, https://www.aqnb.com/2017/01/30/the-violence-of-naming-and-necessity-reading-through-porous-bodies-in-manuel-arturo-abreus-transtrender/ and https://apogeejournal.org/2017/05/01/yani-robinson-reviews-transtrender-manuel-arturo-abreus-chapbook/. When you say "clicked one that I could identify", does that mean you ignore the sources you don't recognize? Vexations (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It "means" only that assessing notability is time-consuming, hard work, and, therefore, the custom has evolved to sometimes politely request that an editor who seems to be familiar with the subject, and who is arguing to "k" indicate 2 or 3 WP:RS that support notability especially well. Thank you for now doing so.

Apogee, a small arts journal [17] article Decolonizing the Trans Movement: Frantz Fanon, Manuel Arturo Abreu, and Securing the Futurity of Trans Women of Color.

. a book review] in AQNB , a very small "editorial platform committed to independent media" [18]

a book review in [thefanzine.com] thefanzine.com, another small literary magazine.

It is unclear to me what degree of editorial control these small literary publication have over their contributors, whether reviews are assigned, whether they are edited, whether the writer are paid,, or indeed much about them. This is the problem. Notability for this "artist, poet, and curator" is being quesitoned precisely because the strongest sourcing an editor arguing to keep has been able to bring is reviewa of a single book in three very small, literary zines. This is the kind of sourcing writers have BEFORE they become notable. notable writers get reviews in better-known publications.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out that the sources I added are "small" (you've mentioned that five times). I'm not sure what "big enough" would be. As far as I can tell, we have no policy that says a source must have a minimum number of subscribers or have a print version or meet some other quantative measure. I think the sources I have added are independent of the subject and reliable. I'll note for example that Apogee has an editorial staff and does not accept submissions. AQNB has an editorial staff as well, and so does thefanzine. Vexations (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, sorry, I'm the original editor, and I am a new editor. I included this as a part of an Edit-athon, and I purposely started on it with little information, so that the students who came to the Edit-athon would have one to improve. (However, I ended up editing myself, obviously). I disagree with a lot of the assertions made about the source. Firstly, Academy of American Poets is not "equivalent of Facebook." You have to be solicited to publish a poem with them, and they have requirements including significant previous publications. Once you have been solicited by an editor, the board can still choose to reject your work. So I believe there is significant enough oversight to meet your concerns. And if your poem is published, as abreu's was, as part of Poem-A-Day, the poem is seen by 500,000+ readers. ^[1] As for Apogee, their editor just won the PEN/Nora Magid Award for Magazine Editing for their work on Apogee, so I feel like that is also a reliable source ^[2] I have added several other references that mention abreu and included links to some of their own work. Just FYI, I have no connection to abreu nor have I ever met them. I am a poet and executive editor for an award-winning independent press, and my only interest in this poet is increasing awareness for Latinx writers. Thanks for the comments and notes, and I hope this wiki keeps growing. PoetryPerson1 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)PoetryPerson1 15 March 2019[reply]

References

^ https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem-day
^ https://pen.org/pen-magid-award/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can join the Academy of American Poets : Become a Member. Become a champion of poetry’s important place in our culture—join the Academy of American Poets today! As a member, you will ensure that our programs are free and reach tens of millions of poets, educators, and readers each year. These include Poets.org, Poem-a-Day, National Poetry Month, and Teach This Poem for K-12 teachers. You will also receive the biannual magazine American Poets, which features poems, book reviews, and interviews with poets, as well as a 10% discount in the Poets Shop and other benefits throughout the year, listed below. When you join the Academy of American Poets you become part of what award-winning poet Carolyn Forché called “the most important organization in our country helping to keep poetry alive and in our culture.”. This page fail s WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can become a member of Academy of American Poets, but you are not necessarily featured as a poet just because you are. None of the benefits listed include being published by the organization. It's an arts organization, meaning it survives on sponsors, grants, and members, just like an organization like the Met. You can become a member of the Met, but you are not going to be able to have an art show just because you're a member. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this poet is a member. Instead, he is featured as a poet by the Academy of American Poet's program "Poem-A-Day." They have multiple prestigious awards and programs, none of which are connected by membership. https://www.poets.org/academy-american-poets/programs.

Here is more information about how the process works, which explicitly says that the poems are solicited by the guest curators: https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/text/qa-march-2019-poem-day-guest-editor-maggie-smith PoetryPerson1 (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is to his member bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that having a poem selected for "Poem a Day" is having a poem published. Publishing a poem does not, however, make the poem or the poet notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEKILL. The page creator, an editor who joined the project last year has created a series of articles, some on notable artists, has now reference bombed the page. Many of these sources are not usable at all. Some are PRIMARY. Take the 2018 Oregon Book Awards, for example, citation #25. This is a real award, but it is a distinctly minor literary prize. I note that most of the recipients are not bluelinked. The fact that this artist won the award is sourced to Literary Arts, which is the website of the Oregon Book Award. WP:BOMBARDING the page with such references does not establish notability. I cannot see that anything in the "Awards" section establishes notability. The "Art Show" section is very brief, but it has a PRIMARY problem. Having work in a group show at New Museum would be impressive, except that the only source is Rhizome which is published by the New Museum. I can't get the first link in te=he "Art Shows" section to work, the second cite is to a show that Abreu put together, the 3rd is the Rhizome cite, and the 4th and last is a social media post.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest claim to notability appears to be the Rhizome article in the 2nd sentence of the "Writing" subhead in which Rhizome, discusses a phenomenon that "manuel arturo abreu has called Online Imagined Black English, or digital blackface." You can find a discussion of this at Blackface#High_tech. Our page does not reference Abreu.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PoetryPerson1, You could persuade me with 3 or 4 truly solid sources with working links. My searches aren't finding much about him, and when I try clicking links to publications I know, like the Philadelphia Tribune, it did not work.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It works now. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. But it DOES NOT support the assertion on our page that: "abreu is most well-known for their discussion of the term, 'Online Imagined Black English.'" It shows it that he wrote an essay on a widely discussed topic, and that the essay was mentioned in other essays on the topic. Perhaps User:Graywalls, User:PoetryPerson1, or Nom User:Sheldybett would be willing to revisit. To me, this oversoruced page shows that it is WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory please don't WP:BLUDGEON this process. --Theredproject (talk) 17:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon LaCroix[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brandon_LaCroix&action=edit

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

Former child actor who seems to not have much notability with just 2 feature length films. His only major role was The Land Before Time V: The Mysterious Island. So either delete or a redirect to the said film is what I think. Wgolf (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:GNG -- Y not? 02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need more than IMDb, plus having a role in a direct to video 5th installment of an animated series is hardly a "significant" role in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Land Before Time V: The Mysterious Island, where his notability lies - as the voice of an animated character. his only other film was an excedingly minor role .E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shingen the Ruler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG per lack of significant coverage where I agree with Czar that the sources posted in the 1st AfD were passing mentions or just not WP:SIGCOV in his previous nomination. Nothing to find in my searches Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article as is is garbage, but I would honestly be pretty surprised if English Wikipedia lacked an article (or at least a list entry) on a Japanese video game set in 16th-century Japan that was localized in North America in the early 90s, and had a two-minute fairly in-depth (if tongue-in-cheek) review of its cover and cartridge art by no less than James Rolfe. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No new source material since the last discussion. Lacking in significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to write an article that does justice to the topic. Being featured in a James Rolfe YouTube video has no bearing on notability—that's entertainment, not a reliable source. No suitable redirect targets, as List of Nintendo Entertainment System games/List of Family Computer games only lists games with individual articles and the game's developer also has no article. czar 18:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: FWIW, while I agree with the statement Being featured in a James Rolfe YouTube video has no bearing on notability—that's entertainment, not a reliable source. in theory, the fact remains that the vast, vast majority of so-called "reliable sources" on video games (and indeed all modern popular media) are in reality entertainment pieces meant to make money by selling audiences, who watch/read the product for their own entertainment rather than to be informed by the work of scholars/critics/reporters, to advertisers. The Rolfe video I linked above can be used as an independent source to verify more "encyclopedic content" about the game than many of the articles whose standalone existence we currently tolerate. Again, I'm still saying weak keep because, honestly, I agree with you, but it seems arbitrary that an article on an old Japanese video game should be deleted when other articles that rely on equally shitty sources survive AFD because their shitty sources happen to be online. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source is made credible by its editorial chain, whether that's editorial policy, journalist pedigree, or reputation among peers. The incredibly low standards of video game journalism only underscores the very low bar that this game's coverage would need to cross and yet cannot. Being an "old Japanese video game" is surely a factor, but the bigger point is that we are lacking reliable, secondary sources to paraphrase: in effect, we cannot do justice to this game based on the available sourcing. (No, an episode of the Angry Video Game Nerd on YouTube is not a quality source for the purposes of an encyclopedia.) czar 00:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Czar. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Czar. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as I clearly didn't take the opportunity to fix the article last time it came up for deletion, I probably won't fix it this time, and Czar was more than patient in the intervening years. The Japanese wikipedia has a slightly better article on 武田信玄 (ファミリーコンピュータ) (it cites Famitsu and Family Computer Magazine, but I'm doubtful that the contributions cited actually qualify for SIGCOV). I'd guess even a full translation would not be up to English Wikipedia standards because (1) much of the page is about the game mechanics (e.g. army levels, battle movement, scenarios, etc) which would be better-suited for GameFaqs, (2) the article itself discusses the 1st game rather than the 2nd, and Shingen the Ruler was Takeda Shingen 2, and (3) even the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't have a page for Takeda Shingen 2. If Hot B's page was around, I'd've recommended this page for redirection to there, but Hot B was deleted before Shingen came up for discussion, so that's no longer a viable option short of a lot of work, which I'm clearly not going to do. Cookie3 (talk) 15:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Heritage[edit]

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

This page has no reliable, 3rd party secondary sources. A search for such showed up nothing. We have pages from his employers, and works by him, we need indepdent works about him to show notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I cannot find book reviews, profiles, or any secondary. Please feel free to ping me to reconsider if someone manages to source this, but it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some additional information and sources - he is the founder of the website HecklerSpray,[19][20] listed as one of the most powerful blogs by The Observer - [21] and he was listed as one of the top 100 people of London's creative industries by The Independent [22]. There are a few articles on his book (not entirely independent but it shows media interest) - [23][24] and mentioned as one of the best books of 2018 by RTE [25]. Review articles - [26][27] Hzh (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the reviews mentioned by Hzh in my initial search. Problem is the book reviews are on culturefly.co.uk and storgy.com which as far as I can tell, are minor websites. HecklerSpray was indeed named among The world's 50 most powerful blogs in 2008, and I see the link Hzh provides to the student newspapers confirming that he was the founder. To me, this does not look lime notability. A local source, Kent Online wrote his book up [https://www.kentonline.co.uk/ashford/news/hilarious-tale-of-growing-up-125173/ Guardian journalist Stuart Heritage publishes book 'Don't Be A D***, Pete,' about growing up in Ashford flagged as [6] in Hzh's comment above., his source [5] is an article about the book written by his brother. I am not certain how significant source [7] is : Sinead Crowley's Best Books Of 2018 . But overall this continues to look like it fails WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that author has a new book coming out on the fall list 2019, a fact now reliably sourced on the page to The Bookseller. Perhaps page creator User:GoddessV would like to userfy this and bring it back if the author's next book gets press attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NAUTHOR / WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). Moved to Pyaar Ke Papad as the correct title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pyaar Ke chach Papad[edit]

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

No content and sources provided for WP:Notability Sid95Q (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to Draft:Pyaar Ke Papad: there's a Hindi-language series by this name listed online, appears to be nationally broadcast since February, and seems notable. Not a Hindi speaker myself, so can't tell you what the "chach" means here. Flapjacktastic (talk) 19:56, 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} 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I struggled to find material on this, but perhaps that's because I was searching for the name in Latin script? @Drama panchi: you created this article. Would it be possible for you to add sources like newspaper reviews to show that it fulfils the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (media)? Alarichall (talk) 02:21, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the correct title of this article should be Pyaar Ke Papad. No comment on the notability of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That should help turn up some coverage then! Thanks! I see it's in the IMDB at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9829142. I haven't found any reviews in English yet though. Alarichall (talk) 15:17, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inxeption[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Lots of PR, no signifiant coverage in independent sources. Note the "20 Most Promising.." ranking in CIO is worthless as that publication takes payment for including organizations in such rankings and is not independent. Pontificalibus 14:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Pontificalibus 14:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources from mainstream business press. I’ve no idea whether the sources provided are reliable and independent as I’m not familiar with the tech startup sector, but it looks to me like the UPS PR dept did a great job of flooding the sector press with launch publicity, and that’s about it. Mccapra (talk) 07:16, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lupus III[edit]

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

Actor with questionable notability. Probably should be a redirect to his father Peter Lupus (if not deleted), can't find that much about him, one look at his credits and none of his roles stick out as being a main either. Wgolf (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable per se for someone to be his father's son. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not have any significant roles in notable productions as all known roles seem to be minor so does not pass WP:NACTOR at this stage of his career. I do think his father is notable due to a long role in Mission Impossible series and recurring on Police Squad. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. The article has been de-PRODed before by Tagishsimon but it seems to have been a housekeeping action rather than a genuine objection to deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C.A. Walker Research Solutions[edit]

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

non notable and promotional--presumed sock of blocked undeclared paid editor DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find a lot of refs but nothing that looks solid to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 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 redirect to Fraser Anning#Christchurch mosque shootings and egg incident. There is a consensus that this incident should not have a stand-alone article. In general the default action in such cases is to redirect to a suitable target unless a strong argument has been advanced for not doing so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Anning egg incident[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't meant to cover a brief flurry of news. And this event is really very minor. Most of this article is just spam trying to make the event seem important, when it could all be in the article of Fraser Anning --Quiz shows 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not news. It can be covered at Fraser Annings article. AIRcorn (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part of the ever-changing news cycle, no suggestion of lasting significance, worth only a mention in the Fraser Anning article. WWGB (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Move any notable details, with citations, into Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings, where the incident has already been mentioned. Definitely not worth a stand-alone article. Meticulo (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per discussion below. Apologies for beginning this 'Merge' trend. I fully expect to be whacked with a wet trout. Meticulo (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge info into the aforementioned Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings article unless this proves to have lasting significance, which is unlikely. JaneHillervene (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Merge into Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings. This is a very minor incident which can be adequately covered there.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per discussion below. This is adequately covered by Anning's article. There is nothing here that needs merging.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge considering it already exists elsewhere and per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 05:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Keep as the news coverage is now ongoing. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just curious as to what needs to be merged. It is already covered pretty well there? AIRcorn (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "merge" and "delete" is virtually the same in this context, but I think "merge" is an easier target.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does mean a redirect will be left behind and it will be added to the already backloged Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion. AIRcorn (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge and expand the Anning article. Leotext (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's adequately covered in Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings, which, unlike this article, does not name the person who egged the senator (nor do the sources used for that section). Per WP:BLPNAME, I don't think that information should be included, so it would be preferable to delete this article than to merge it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We should be cautious about identifying the person who egged the senator. I noticed on Insiders this morning that his face was blanked out, and he was said to be 17 years old. Charges may still be laid against him, and he would be considered a child for legal purposes. Identifying him could then be illegal and result in prosecution for contempt of court, despite his being active on social media. ~~Accordingly, I've removed his name from the article, with an edit summary asking that it not be replaced until a consensus to do so has been established on the talk page.~~ Thanks, RebeccaGreen, for pointing out this issue. Meticulo (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reverted my change and put his name back into the article, hence the strike-out above. Their reasons for doing so, and my response, are on the talk page. Meticulo (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, flash in the pan, no enduring significance - no material to merge as far as I can see. St Anselm (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge just put it in the Fraser Anning article. It's really not relevant enough to have an article separate from his own. Dreadwyrm (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It can and it is covered at the Fraser Anning article. I agree with RebeccaGreen as per WP:BLPNAME, that information should not be includedBacondrum (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This belongs as a subsection of the Fraser Anning article, not an independent article. However, the final decision should be put off until it is clear whether or not criminal charges will result from the incident, since those would make it more noteworthy. Lokicarbis (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a criminal charge against Anning, that belongs on his article. If there were criminal charges against "egg boy", that is trivial. We should not maintain an article on the basis that it might become noteworthy at some point. It might turn out that the egg contained VX nerve gas and the "boy" was a North Korean sleeper agent. As it stands, the incident was a trivial act of protest that obtained transient and superficial attention.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, this is going to be completely forgotten within months, though having the information merged to the notable main article and a redirect to that will be more useful. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 11:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that can be done here = think about whether this will be seen as important in the future. That's because WP:GNG is clearly met by international coverage, and a lot of the content doesn't belong at the article on the politician.
GoFundMe raised over $30,000 for the kid and "more eggs" [28]. The incident was trending worldwide on Twitter [29]. Over 1 million people have signed a Change.org petition to remove Anning from Parliament [30]. The petition is the largest Australian Change.org petition [31].
All of this, coupled with the ton of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, leads me to believe that it is necessary to keep this article with no prejudice to a future renomination. wumbolo ^^^ 12:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The petition to remove Anning is only marginally related to this incident. St Anselm (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So the only thing left is the fact that the incident was trending on Twitter. But all sorts of temporary news trends on Twitter (and all sorts of temporary non-news, like opinions on the latest reality TV episode), so that is no argument to keep. Adpete (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article should be renamed to something like "Fraser Anning statement about Islam controversy". Then it would cover all of the relevant events - the egging, the latter encounter with a protester, the petition, the criminal proceeding of the assault, reactions to the statement about Islam, potential censure from Parliament, potential resigning, etc. Problem fixed. wumbolo ^^^ 22:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that is far more appropriate at the Fraser Anning article. Adpete (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Part of it can be merged into the Fraser Anning page, definitely not significant enough to be a page alone. Peter Yeung (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fraser Anning. There isn't enough content here to justify a separate article, it seems premature at this point unless this incident has some kind of lasting consequences. Robofish (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the incident is still under investigation and the article documents a current event. It seems premature to delete the article at the moment, since there is a possibility that this could become more important in the future. However, if in a month or so, there are no new developments, I would agree with merging into a different article. Hickland (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, covered in the main article more than adequately. Steven Crossin 16:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. We should not create a separate page for every political egging incident no-matter how 'prominent' some people think it is at a given moment. Alssa1 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's already sufficiently merged into Fraser Anning's page. Perhaps we could add another sentence or two of details about the egg-thrower, but per above this is a serious case of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly looks like we're reaching consensus here. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to to Fraser Anning. Split off again if there is continued coverage. DigitalPanda (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in its entirely, or the vast majority of it, to Fraser Anning. Pre-empting the result of this AfD, we can start doing that now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously unencyclopedic and I'd go even farther to say we should censure the misguided editor that created it in the first place as being WP:NOTHERE. This has exhausted the attention of too many editors already. -- Netoholic @ 02:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know this won't be a popular opinion, but the coverage this incident has achieved, and the cultural impact, both in Australia and New Zealand, as well as internationally, has been significant. The coverage has focused on the actions of "Egg Boy" and his motivations, with bands and festivals offering him free entry for life. This has been an interesting example of a societal and especially internet, phenomenon. Also compare this article to Egg Throwing Incident (1917). There are 45 (!) articles in the category Category:Protests against Donald Trump alone. I have a feeling that if this happened in the United States, we wouldn't be having this discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare the President of the United States with a minor Australian politician. Show some pages dedicated to protests against minor US politicians and you might have something comparable. Adpete (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is relevant due to the statement Anning released in the aftermath of one of the worst massacres in recent memory, in which he blamed the victims. The statement and the resulting international reaction is arguably more notable than Anning himself. We would expect protests against Trump and due coverage - but 45 articles? AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a very minor politician: elected because of a vacancy and then disowned by his own party, and then the other one he joined, and rejected by others. There is not much you can say about the egging (was the egg fresh?), and it can be adequately dealt with in his article, which isn't very long.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be wise to wait and see what ongoing impact this incident has. Anning and or his supporters may be charged. Just today a mural has been unveiled to "Egg Boy" in Melbourne. AusLondonder (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could always recreate the article if it becomes a major historical event. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This "mural" is not some permanent feature or mosaic, it's a bit of graffiti (paint on a wall). Alssa1 (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already covered in the Anning article. -Keepdry (talk)
Keep - This wikipedia article is where I learnt about the incident and I think this incident is significant enough to have its own page. --Armorasha (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - This is newsworthy and a significant part of the coverage around Anning's response to the shooting, however for it to be significant enough for it to warrant its own page there would have to be more to it that 2 days in the news cycle (like charges being laid against the senator and others involved) Playlet (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS GMG ^talk 15:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant international coverage shows notability. --Drako (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the delete/merge position, but I think there's value in this article. Give it time for the situation to grow, won't hurt anything to allow it to stay around for a month and see how the situation has developed. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--The boy did a highly commendable job but that can be easily covered at Anning's article.∯WBG^converse 19:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did !vote to merge but maybe we ought to hold for a bit. The argument to merge or delete the article isn't as strong now as it was when it was proposed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per our policy on WP:NOTNEWS Merphee (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS, also does not meet WP:EVENT (no long lasting significance) (yet? WP:TOOSOON also applies), can be broken out of Fraser Anning article if this changes. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Context matters here. Global white supremacy and the push back against it are more important than a random news story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmbr (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Strong against delete): I think this incident is best to be redirected to the Fraser Anning#Christchurch mosque shootings and egg incident section. The section already covered the information adequately as Jack Upland said. I am strongly against deleting the page since it adds size to the database. (WP:CHEAP) —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think there is much point redirecting from Fraser Anning egg incident to Fraser Anning#Christchurch mosque shootings and egg incident. Anyone who searches for it will find it anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Eggboy (Pageviews) redirects to Fraser Anning egg incident now. So why delete the pages when it adds more data? Keeping the pages and turning them to redirect pages helps the event to be more searchable. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should not have its own article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 02:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly re-direct to preserve the history - Coverage of this incident is worldwide now. It's on the rise as well. Karl Twist (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but possibly *Merge later. I think before any hasty decisions are made it would be worth seeing if this goes anywhere. The case is far from concluded so more news is likely to follow giving greater scope for expansion. Albrighton Titon (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Albrighton Titon above regarding keeping and then a possible *Merge later. I believe it will have continued coverage. Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't keep this article merely because of "coverage" and commentary. The story has barely advanced from the simple act of egging. There have been barely any developments. If Anning is charged (which I think is unlikely), then that belongs at his page. Broader issues like white supremacy should also be addressed at other pages.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep, agree, this is an event, have a look at "in a nutshell" of WP:EVENT, this incident has not had "lasting major consequences" nor has it received "significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time", to suggest we keep this article because it might does not reflect this standard. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTNEWS, passing event - if it becomes more then can always be revisited. Covered, or can and and should, in Fraser Anning's article. Aoziwe (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect - the sheer amount of media coverage means that ideally it should have its own article, however in the long run it's probably wiser to incorporate the information into other appropriate and relevant pages. Greenleader(2) (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing in this article worthy of merge to Fraser Anning. It already looks like this incident was a quarter of his political career which seems to be undue weight for someone going a bit overboard in heckling an independent MP. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adequately covered in the Fraser Anning article. PhilKnight (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirect. Keep per Albrighton Titon, redirect per Karl Twist.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The article is rather bare-bones compare to other news in Wikipedia. INeedSupport ^:3 02:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is still in the news. [32] wumbolo ^^^ 20:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Christchurch mosque shootings#Reactions - also related to hate speech. 2679D (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not newsworthy, and there is no need to merge anything as it is already adequately covered in the Fraser Anning article. I also disagree with the argument that it should be kept in case it becomes newsworthy; by this logic one could justify starting an article about any event and editors' time will continuously be wasted discussing the merits. Maranello10 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mention in reactions section of shooting. I think it's clear this has already become old news, at least for the most part. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the incident has entered the internet lore. Here's some subsequent coverage:

Man who tackled ‘Egg boy’ facing charges for storming church service with sword and megaphone, The Independent
All About Egg Boy, the Internet’s New Teen Hero, The Cut

From a practical standpoint, there are two merge/redirect targets being suggested. When this happens, it makes sense to have a stand-alone article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see only one editor has suggested a merge to the Christchurch mosque shootings page. This page does not currently mention Fraser Anning. The Fraser Anning page is much more suitable, as it already has a section about the incident (if we are going to merge). This is not an argument for a stand-alone article.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very minor brouhahaha, already covered adequately at Fraser_Anning#Christchurch_mosque_shootings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Already covered in Anning's article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:06, 24 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sundog (company)[edit]

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

small unimportant company. The refs are local, or PR, not substantial. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:34, 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 (WP:NPASR) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adewale Adeleke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite performing minor copyedits to the article and removing unreliable sources, the subject isn't notable and has not been discussed significantly in reliable sources. He fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. The subject is the owner of a non notable record label. The author of the page claimed that the subject is a musician, yet he has not released any solo material. The article's previous AFD discussion can be assessed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adewale Adeleke. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sources seem to be good there and I found a few more with Google's help, such as https://www.nigeriafilms.com/style/126-health-workshop/52032-davido-s-elder-brother-adewale-adeleke-survived-major-surgery-in-america-photos . Granted, it's mostly in relation to his brother's career, so a merge and redirect would be a more likely resolution than a delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 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? 03:47, 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 merge to Wheatus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan B. Brown[edit]

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

Does not seem like he is notable outside of being in the band Wheatus. Andise1 (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Wheatus, since some content is cited and salvagable. Would need trimming/sourcing for the other stuff, though. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Normally I would agree to merge with Wheatus, however it does pass WP:STANDALONE and WP:GNG. I would definitely say "keep" if he had a solo album, but since there isn't one listed on the page (I'm assuming he doesn't have one), it should be merged with the band article. Not to be conflicting but this wouldn't have to be merged if he produced music for other singers/bands or made an acting appearance in a tv show/film. Horizonlove (talk) 01:50, 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 03:13, 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? 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Wheatus as he is mainly notable with them Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come as You Are Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as needing additional sources for over four and a half years. The only source is to an author "Halstead", but with no further information I could not find anything about this source. The proposed deletion was removed because the tour was a group of tours that was deleted at the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/This Is My Time Tour. Aspects (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NTOUR, the notability test for a concert tour is not just the ability to compile a list of tour venues — the notablity test is the ability to show reliable source coverage about the tour, which demonstrates notability "in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". Nothing like that is in evidence here, however, and even the single source is unlocatable because it fails to provide enough citation detail to identify what it actually is in the first place. This, as written and sourced, is not how you make a concert tour notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 16:33, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Elayyan[edit]

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

I have nominated this article due to it failing WP:GNG. Elayyan is not notable under WP:NSPORTS and the coverage of him is entirely due to his cause of death WP:BLP1E. 202.172.113.133 (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The deceased did not have any significant coverage prior to this death, therefore his death does not warrant any Wikipedia coverage beyond that of the other 49 victims. He does not satisfy notability guidelines for a standalone article. WWGB (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources prior to death to establish notability. WWGB (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the saddest/one of the most difficult delete !votes I've ever cast, but unfortunately the deceased would not have been notable enough for an article last week. Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. SportingFlyer T·C 05:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed from delete). I am sympathetic to any national representative, as I consider it being covered under WP:NSPORTS “participated in a major amateur or professional competition”. However, I would like to see some solid coverage from before his death. I can not find any, will flip quickly if some is found. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

change to keep as Wumbolo has found enough pre death refs for verification. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Weak keep, although I have BLP reservations in case his family requests the article be deleted. There is coverage before the massacre - see [33] [34]. He was New Zealand Football's futsal "player of the year" [35], and has been described as a great goalkeeper [36]. All of these refs are from before the mass shootings, and when combined with the newer refs with greater coverage, WP:BASIC is met. wumbolo ^^^ 14:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another tragic article and difficult AfD discussion. There may be profiles of him (and other victims) published in the media in the coming days/weeks, and those profiles may detail not just his death but also his life before it, and could be good RSes from which to write an article. NOTCRYSTALBALL but at the same time I'm waiting to vote to see what develops over the next week. Leviv ich 15:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PvOberstein (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HARD KEEP This guy wasn't just a futsal player (although he did win two national titles and a player of the year award)^[1]. He was the CEO of LazyWorm Apps, and the founder of MetroTube and Tweetro+. According to the principal software engineer of Microsoft, MetroTube was once the most popular app in the Windows store.^[2] He was featured in a Microsoft Ignite keynote video^[3] and was on CIO100's list of New Zealand's most influential tech people for both 2017 and 2018.^[4] There's plenty of information on this guy and he's notable enough to warrant a wiki page. He was also a CounterStrike pro^[5], although it might be hard to find sources for that. But regardless, he was an incredibly interesting and talented person and I really hope we don't delete his page just because he wasn't discovered until after his death. TwistedLogix (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an autobiographical forum post from 2012 about playing CS. [37] wumbolo ^^^ 21:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his business career adds a lot of impact to the relevance here. There are loads of articles about the work he was doing at Lazy Worm. See:

References

^ https://twitter.com/attaelayyan/status/541462032386514944
^ https://medium.com/@nzigel/atta-elayyan-a-great-new-zealander-276bfc3e8b02
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9lD_QxgPg
^ https://www.cio.co.nz/article/658893/atta-elayyan-cio100-leader-one-victims-christchurch-massacre/
^ https://www.gpforums.com.au/threads/528025-RIP-Cr-zyArab

Comment It pains me to argue against this, but of the sources provided in this discussion so far, only the CIO write-up might pass WP:GNG. The Canterbury article is an interview with an alumnus, the "player of the year" mention was a sentence in routine sports coverage, the "great goalkeeper" mention was in the league's media guide, the Idealog article only quoted him for a couple grafs halfway down the article and isn't sigcov. The other sources are medium articles, tweets, or links to Youtube. I understand the sentiment is to keep this, but I'm mostly posting this if someone were to take a look at this AfD after the fact. An article on him would have been deleted a week ago without thought. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it might be hard to sort out his coverage from the recent tragic events, but from the little bits and pieces I can find, he was a recognized innovator in his IT field and has represented New Zealand in sport at an international level. I would argue that, apart from the article being inadequate at the moment, he meets WP:GNG on his own merits NealeFamily (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed this on the front page of the BBC: [38]. SportingFlyer T·C 05:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per coverage above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above. Ben5218 (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wasn't notable before he was one of 50 killed in a mass shooting, isn't notable after. Futsal players have to meet WP:GNG and the lack of sources pre death are what should apply not the tributes after. Dougal18 (talk) 09:09, 18 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]

Redirect to Christchurch mosque shootings#Victims. Giant Snowman 10:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep named in the New Zealand CIO100 two years in a row; he had notability before his death. In depth coverage of that, plus coverage of him being NZ Futsal Player of the Year = multiple published independent sources = WP:BASIC is met.Grutness...wha? 14:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is an easy GNG pass. Even without the attack in NZ there is multiple, independant sources, no just his sporting career but business as well.Borgarde (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable before the shooting; notable after. Meets WP:GNG, IMHO. Definite keep. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a notable entrepreneur,software developer and football player. He is multi talented and The accident is very notable. In fact any one of these reasons is enough to keep the article.
Keep There are already plenty of articles on other sports athletes that are shorter than this one. Also, because of the circumstances and of his past accoplishments outside of sport, the page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldblazer (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been expaned beyond the initial premise of being a victim of the shooting. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article was originally focused on his probably-non-notable sports career, I think the recent reorientation towards his much more notable career in computing leads me to a keep vote. Blythwood (talk) 20:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahadev Bajgain[edit]

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

Also bundle Draft:Mahadev Bajgain for deletion.
User:Mohita Bajgain/sandbox declined twice

Non-notable mayor of smaller town. I believe when we did not immediately accept the page at AfC he posted his autobio into mainspace. Pestering at the AfC helpdesk too. User now indef'd and talkpage blocked for copyvio [39] Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I removed the AfD template from the draft, since those have different deletion criteria and thus aren't discussed at AfD, but it was reverted by LP. ansh 666 21:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I rejigged that so it works now. It is fine to bundle in a draft here on the senior board. If taken to MfD we would defer to AfD anyway. Legacypac (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found some sources [40] [41] [42] [43] --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also another version of the page declined twice in his sandbox User:Mohita Bajgain/sandbox Legacypac (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is what you would expect from routine coverage of local politics. Fails WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:47, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A2B Bicycles[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are book selling sites. The Economic Times review is about a company trying to decide whether to sell these bikes. Searches provide many selling site but few if any reliable independent sources. A few blogs exist but reliability is very questionable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion on the notability of the subject of the article at this time. However, the nominator seems to misunderstand the references contained within the article. Velella stated that the "Refs are book selling sites", which is false and misleading. The references contain links to Google Books, which is "a service from Google Inc. that searches the full text of books and magazines that Google has scanned, converted to text using optical character recognition (OCR), and stored in its digital database". The references are not to book selling sites, but to actual books and magazines stored in the Google Books database. MarkZusab (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bicycles from this company have been reviewed in publications including Wired, ABC News, and TechCrunch, along with receiving coverage from The Times of India and The Economic Times. MarkZusab (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 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 03:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes GNG, and arguably passes CORPDEPTH as well. The Economic Times articles focuses on both A2B and its parent company, showing more coverage than simply reviews or financial results. A merge to a new page for the parent organization might be good to do at some point, if Hero Eco looks more easily notable. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Commenting that after adding more coverage to the page, everything is basically inaccurate as it was. A2G is a brand, not an independent company it looks, and Hero Eco (in some form) has always been the parent company. Renaming the page A2B (brand) or merging it into a Hero Eco section might help clarify for readers. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:GNG. However, as suggested above, this page would be better restructured as an article on Hero Eco. Just Chilling (talk) 15:48, 21 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 move to Draft:HSC Healthcare Group. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HSC Medical Center[edit]

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

PROD declined in 2011 on the grounds that there were sources to support notability. I can’t find anything except run of the mill listings. Notability not established. Mccapra (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:26, 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} 14:14, 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 03:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. There are some articles about the parent [44] [45]. A larger article about the parent and its facilities may meet the GNG. --Bsherr (talk) 16:42, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROGNOZ[edit]

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

User:HelpUsStopSpam tagged this for notability in May 2018. It appears to be a case of undisclosed paid editing and corporate sockpuppetry, as the main contributors are User:Prognoz-marketing and User:Prognoz5. I agree with the former's assessment; this appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH per my attached source analysis.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	? Lists them as a "partner", potentially affiliated.	? Unfamiliar with the source.	WP:YELLOWPAGES-type entry in a list of eleven other "partner" companies.	✘ No
2	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Quotes Prognoz's founder on the state of the economy.	✘ No
3	No apparent affiliation.	? Useless, it's a translation machine.	Seems to be a Google Translate / Babel Fish clone, nothing to do with Prognoz.	✘ No
4	Homepage.	~ For claims of notability, no, for basic company details, yes.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
6	Archived version of their website.	~ Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
6	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
7	Appears unaffiliated.	? Unfamiliar with source.	Market analysis, Prognoz not even mentioned.	✘ No
8	Their website.	~ For claims of notability, no, for basic company details, yes.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ 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) 14:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can find independent coverage with respect to the (dead) Gartner source. For example here: https://www.kdnuggets.com/2017/03/thomaswdinsmore-gartner-data-science-platforms.html they briefly mention Prognoz: "... inspired WTF reactions from folks in the know. Primarily a BI tool with some time-series and analytics functionality included, Prognoz lacks the predictive analytics capabilities that Gartner says are minimally required. It also appears to lack customers West of Moscow." apparently it was briefly in the Garnter MQ, as niche player, then disappeared again. They might be important in Russia, though. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacking English coverage and this being en.wikipedia and per your assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graywalls (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per my original tagging of the article. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 21:30, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jonbenét[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:MUSIC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are zero, save for official sites, and the article reads more like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are not zero - the Houston Press and Spin, two high-quality RSes, are already included, and I just added a few more reviews and bio pieces. Chubbles (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:MUSIC. 105.154.195.31 (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria one of WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources such as AllMusic, Exclaim, CMJ, Houston Press and Spin including independent reviews of their works, so they deaerve to be given a place in Wikipedia, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Chevalia[edit]

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

Former child star who had just 3 films, while Homeward bound is a notable film (well so are the other 2 films), this guy isn't. Wgolf (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gratuitous Type (magazine)[edit]

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

I tagged this for PROD back in December. It was de-PROD'd by Arispool, who added some sources. I finally got back around to reviewing the sources while picking through my watchlist and I still don't think this meets WP:NMAG or WP:GNG.

Of the sources offered, KK Outlets source is a marketing company, so it's not an independent source. The It's Nice That article is decent, if a bit of a narrow audience. Eye on Design is an interview with the founder, so that fails the independence test. Magpile appears to be no more than a database, and a user-editable one at that, so it doesn't support a claim of notability. Finally, per its own about page, Stack is a magazine subscription service, so I don't think a two-minute video review of a magazine from it can be considered an independent reliable source (after all, they have an interest in selling you magazines!).

I did my own search for sources at the time of the PROD and now again while AfDing and didn't find anything additional. Overall, I'm not seeing enough coverage to support a claim of notability under NMAG or GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines, no coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Citrivescence (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 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 speedy keep. I am going to close these as a procedural keep as at least a few of them have only recently been closed as a no consensus decision. This is not to say any of these articles should be kept or deleted, just that such a mass nomination is inherently unhelpful. Fenix down (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and club does not play in a fully professional league. Davidsousa1 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same aforementioned reasons:

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

[1] ttps://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem-day

[2] ttps://pen.org/pen-magid-award/

[3] ttps://twitter.com/attaelayyan/status/541462032386514944

[4] ttps://medium.com/@nzigel/atta-elayyan-a-great-new-zealander-276bfc3e8b02

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF9lD_QxgPg

[6] ttps://www.cio.co.nz/article/658893/atta-elayyan-cio100-leader-one-victims-christchurch-massacre/

[7] ttps://www.gpforums.com.au/threads/528025-RIP-Cr-zyArab

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]