Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 March	21 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Showbiz Clans[edit]

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

This is a list of showbiz families in the Philippines. See WP:LISTCRUFT. My gut instinct is to do a speedy deletion, but it's probably better to err on the side of caution for the time being by doing an AfD. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:LC does not fall in any CSD but falls under WP:NOTDIR. --Hiwilms (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the clans/families themselves do not have articles so notability is not established Atlantic306 (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Saucedo[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet WP:BLP, only link is to the bio on his employer's website. BilCat (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a chapter about him in a book, shown in Worldcat to be held in several libraries worldwide, and added it as another source ... then Googled the publisher and found that it's a self-publishing outfit (though cited in quite a few articles in Wikipedia). Pity about that. PamD 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: and just like the first AfD, it's still WP:COPYVIO from the second paragraph of his biography on his employer's website [1]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO by a long shot. Richard3120 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I didn't check the sources when I edited the article. After seeing this discussion and looking at the sources I agree it is just another attempted COPYVIO from the website. The book reference is covered above. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There are some very minor wording changes from the biography cited above, but not enough to avoid the WP:COPYVIO. This is enough for a speedy delete, additionally it also fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:37, 26 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parallax Film Productions[edit]

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

Advertorialized article about a television production company, not properly referenced as the subject of any reliable source coverage to get it over WP:CORP. Of the 17 footnotes here, 12 are its own primary source content about itself, four more are the self-published web pages of other companies that this one has had direct business relationships with (one network that bought one of this company's shows and one company that was the subject of one of this company's shows), and the last is a dead link that formerly verified a purely tangential construction announcement that had nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of this company. Furthermore, the article was created by a user named "Parallaxpete", a clear conflict of interest. As always, television production companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published web presence metaverifies their existence -- they have to be the subject of media coverage, in sources independent of themselves, to clear the notability bar. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if I were an admin I'd happily speedy delete this as unambiguous advertising, based on the promotional wording and being almost enitely sourced to the company website. I can't find any evidence online of independent reliable news coverage about the company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 06:48, 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 delete. Fails WP:GNG. bd2412 T 23:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exit Stage Left[edit]

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

Not convinced this play is notable - it appears just to have had the one production. Tacyarg (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, allow me to congratulate the students of the Ecclesfield School for taking getting their school play into the 2012 Edinburgh Fringe Festival and writing [2] a Wikipedia article about it. Second, allow me to point out that while this school play got a nice write-up in the local Sheffield Star, it fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 27 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZestMoney[edit]

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

The article is highly promotional, and the company fails WP:NCORP.

The article has a lot of sources, but they are mostly either primary or trivial (funding rounds). To be specific:

the Digital Creed, TechCrunch, Hindu Businessline, ForbesIndia, LiveMint, and TechCircle sources are all puffy interviews with the CEO with press releases attached - primary at best, possible paid features.
The Business Standard article says that it is not written by Business Standard, and is 'automatically generated' by a syndication feed - so not reliable. (It's also based around a press release with a puffy interview with the CEO, so primary)
The Economic Times article is actually a feature written (in the first person) by the CEOs - not independent.
The VCCircle article gives the company trivial coverage while reporting on an acquisition (but squeezes in an interview with the CEO) - not significant coverage, also primary.
The rest of the sources just report on funding rounds - not significant coverage.

I had a look for better sources, but couldn't find anything that meets the requirements at WP:NCORP for significant, reliable, independent and secondary. There is a lot of trivial/unreliable/primary coverage out there, but nothing that I can find that we could build a reliable article out of. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted. K2323 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mint and Hindu BL are among India's most trusted business newspapers. As for Business Standard, the article does say it is from ANI, which is among the top three wire services in India. When BS says the article comes out of a syndicated feed, it means the article was first published by either ANI or PTI or someone else and an automated program picks it up and publishes it. That's pretty much how the news media industry operates, so terming it not reliable isn't a great option. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't dismissing Mint or Hindu BL - I was saying that the articles are interviews with the CEO, so they are primary sources, and so do not adhere to the requirements at WP:NCORP. (I also note that they are very puffy, and topped up with what appears to be press release content.)

As for the reliability of the automatically written article, I'll leave others to comment on that - but it's still based on an interview with the CEO, and so a primary source.GirthSummit _(blether) 20:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost identical to the G11d version from earlier today. Cabayi (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are more reliable sources on one of the co-founders than the company. But even then, there isn't notability. The company references are mainly funding and general announcements which do not show WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviousadvertising, and not enough sourcing for NCORP. Either reason would be enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 27 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 Ericom Software. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Canellos[edit]

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources, all coverage appears to be limited to hiring/firing announcements from PR outlets (or more reputable sources republishing press releases) and a few scattered comments in interviews. All in all, nowhere near enough content to write an article. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Ericom Software. Will fit in nicely over there. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ericom Software as that's where he currently works, and the sourcing on his page doesn't seem to be significant. Citrivescence (talk) 23:54, 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 merge to Ian Gow. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First televised speech in the UK Parliament[edit]

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

The concept of television of parliament, and the fact of there being first televised contributions from Cryer and Gow, is noteable. However, the speech itself, in terms of its content, is no more noteable than any other (and much less so than many) in encyclopaedic terms. Kevin McE (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - purpose of WP is not to catalog the first time things have happened. Well meaning article, but no sourcing to establish notability of the event ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ian Gow, selectively. The text of the speech belongs on Wikisource, not in an encyclopedia article. What remains all boils down to a few sentences that could be added to the "Parliamentary career" section of Gow's biography. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter:: What about this speech do you believe should be added to Gow's article beyond what is already there? Kevin McE (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This passage could be worked into the penultimate paragraph of the "Parliamentary career" section: Until 1989, television cameras did not show proceedings in the House of Commons, although it had been discussed eight times between 1964 and 1989. In 1988 MPs backed an experiment with cameras in the chamber, and 1989 Commons proceedings were televised for the first time on 21 November. MPs agreed in 1990 to make the experiment permanent. Despite his opposition to the televising of Parliament, Ian Gow delivered the first speech to Parliament, although he was not the first MP to appear on camera in the chamber, as Bob Cryer, the MP for Bradford South raised a point of order before Gow spoke. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and transwiki as above. This is the most significant content we have about the history of televising of parliament and the title is the first hit on google for several related search terms, everything else I've found is single sentences or bullet points in disparate articles (often tangential). Until someone writes an article or section, it's important that we retain something and merging to Gow's biography is a good way to do this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 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 deleted as a WP:COPYVIO. This is likely to be an unpopular result, but as RoySmith and Britishfinance point out in the discussion, copyright expertise is required to assess the copyright status of this article, and I am in the unfortunate position of being an admin with the requisite expertise. While it is true that copyright can not inhere to lists of facts, this article is not a list of facts. It is a list of speculations, based on factors chosen by its authors. While these factors may have been chosen with an intent to make the most accurate projections, there is still substantial personal creativity involved in deciding which factors to include and which of the immeasurable set of all possible factors to exclude. This deletion is without prejudice to the creation of an article about this list of projections, which could in context make a fair use discussion replicating a sampling of these factors, and broadly relaying their conclusions. However, replication of the numbers arrived at by the author here, no matter how formatted, lifts this information out of the body of work that Wikipedia is able to publish under its license. As a final thought, the use of this or any material in Wikipedia to further any third-party agenda is irrelevant, and properly rejected as a basis for deletion. bd2412 T 20:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant)[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted Mystery42 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page is just a copypaste of some UN report. There are no other references, the "references" are only footnotes from the report and other footnotes by some Wikipedia people. Everyone could just get this directly from the UN. If it is relevant to some other article, they need not reference this article, but they can simply refer to the UN report. In my eyes, the technical problem is that this article is irrelevant and this is a reason to delete this article.

The bigger problem is: Context is missing. There is no discussion of the methods, no criticism, not even the context of why this table was created and what purpose it is supposed to be used for. This data necessarily is highly speculative. Noone can estimate the world's population without dubious theoretical assumptions. This is obvious for any academic, but it might not be obvious to children or people with bad access to education. Of course, Wikipedia should educate these groups, but this context-free stub is not going to educate them. It is rather going to make them believe: "This is on Wikipedia, even UN, there is no criticism section, so this is probably objectively true."

This becomes clear when we see that the shooter of Christchurch refers to this article in his manifesto (which will lead many people to this page). Of course, the shooter's reference is not a reason to remove this article. But it is obvious that people like him just take this table to be objective truth, just like the actual population numbers from last year.

The worse problem is: It just appears as if this was a propaganda page by people with the same ideology as the shooter. Just look at the phrase in brackets: "(which is the *recommended* one)". This has not been written by someone who wanted to inform other people, but rather by someone who desperately wanted to persuade other people.

So – as there are clear technical reasons to delete this page –, I suggest doing so. (In that case, better put a note in there, linking to this discussion, so that people do not think Wikipedia is censoring facts because they support an unpopular opinion. This page URL will be called by many people and they would then wonder. It should be clear that this page simply does not make sense for technical reasons.)

The technical reason is: This page is unnecessary and it makes figures look uncontroversial which are not uncontroversial. An alternative would be to extend this page, but I do not see a reason for that at the moment. Mystery42 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - being mentioned in the Christchurch manifesto is not a reason to delete something. The article has existed since 2011, and you have to do something better than this nomination. When stating objective data projected by a neutral source becomes 'propaganda', I fear for the fate of the modern man. Or whatever. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a WP:COPYVIO. The terms of use state it is for "personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is not a valid deletion argument. By your logic, EVERY article is copyvio because they all (or nearly all) use copyrighted works as sources. We are certainly allowed to use data to write articles. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a functional copy-and-paste of the report. The logic isn't wrong. We could use this as a reference, but we can't copy the table per the U.N. copyright/terms of use. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article existed since 2011 and has a lot of language versions. We also have other similar article List of countries by population (United Nations). Dawid2009 (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I agree this is a copyvio. It appears clear from the U.N. website the United Nations does not allow this data to be redistributed (which we are clearly doing) without permission. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be G12'd. SportingFlyer T·C 02:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:COPYVIO appears to be a potential issue. What should really happen is a deeper discussion of UN's future population reports, with the nominated article plus List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant fertility variant), List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant mortality variant), and etc included as sources. Burroughs'10 (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, and per Dawid2009. We can't let monstrous acts influence encyclopedic content. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article as this subject is notable and fix copyvio issues. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's role is to summarize content from other sources, and usually not to reproduce the entire content in full. However, there are many cases in which we need an entire video, table, or quote if we can keep it. The issue here is there are all these other articles: List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, constant mortality variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, instant replacement variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, high fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, low fertility variant) List of countries by future population (United Nations, medium fertility variant) List of countries by past and current population (United Nations, estimates) and nobody knows what any of this means without reading the report. I suppose we could go ahead and copypaste the whole text of the report to explain it, but then we really would be committing a copyright violation (which the data per se does not do). But never mind that -- the end point is we have the entire UN crystal ball put in the voice of Wikipedia. Is that what we need? Doesn't the UN host their own report? The fix is to take all this data, condense it down to maybe one table, paraphrase some context, link in some commentary, make the article about the report or World Population Prospects in general, and give readers something they can take home a message from rather than a poor copy of a primary document. This is not a pure delete vote (I want that article) and it is not a pure keep vote (most of these articles need to get redirected to something - actually World Population Prospects is an excellent target). I see no need for administrative deletion - no content here has to be hidden, because the U.S. does not (yet, I hope not ever) suffer from database copyright. Also, I would like to retain the data because readers can take ratios of the projections over current population and make up SVG maps using this data, which are easier to swallow in moderate doses. The data tables could then be kept at the map image description pages. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's clear this is still a copyvio. The Excel spreadsheet this article is completely based on has a copyright with an "all rights reserved" on it, which includes redistribution or creating derivative works. The database rights isn't on point, because you imply databases that aren't covered by that law do not fall under copyright, which is incorrect (if I have this right that actually creates a separate right if you have a database of facts you have worked to compile, and facts cannot be copyrighted.) Further, the data are estimates and not facts so can be copyrighted as they are the work of the U.N. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about estimates almost makes sense, but not when there is no originality involved. A set of predictions made by a scientific procedure are meant to be reproducible by anyone who does the same thing. We have many such tables - electronegativity, Mohs hardness scale, oxidation state etc. The number does not have to be a direct observation - a 'fact' you might say -- it can be highly processed by algorithms or clever chemists into some index; nonetheless, if the author didn't have the option to just go into the table and change some numbers for the heck of it, it cannot be a creative work. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, databases are copyrightable in the U.S. - see "compilation" here [3]. Even if the facts in the databases aren't copyrightable (assuming the data are "facts" the database itself can be. And in any case, "unoriginal" databases have been held in the past as breach of contracts where distribution occurs through a license even though the work itself isn't available for copyright. In this case, it's crystal clear the UN license is incompatible with the Wikipedia license. See Wikipedia:Non-free_content. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia certainly cannot breach a contract it didn't make. Your argument about "compilation" relies on some indication that the authors compiled and selected their original population data from many different sources in a unique and idiosyncratic way rather than using a few public data sets to base their projections; admittedly I haven't found out enough about the set to disprove that, but I'm not convinced it's true either. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it can breach a license, which is, in essence if not in fact, a contract to use the data. An argument saying the UN copyright/license is invalid because of a legal theory which may or may not be correct isn't an argument to keep per our non-free content terms. SportingFlyer T·C 23:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming copyrights on uncopyrightable material based on "a legal theory which may or may not be correct" is called copyfraud. Every day people are duped into paying royalties on public domain content, and there's no law against it. Even so, I don't see the UN here complaining - I see you propounding what sounds like an overwrought extension of copyrights even beyond their usual miserable nature. Wnt (talk) 0f7:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but again, you're assuming a court would assume the information provided in the table is not creative. Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, this is an instance where the UN is not reporting facts, but rather collecting data from a number of different sources and providing their own estimate. It could be considered roughly equivalent to the CCC Information Services case mentioned in that link. It really boils down to whether these have been created by "repeatable calculation" or by "value judgments," and a reading of the methodology here, especially page 5 [4], means that we're much closer to "value judgments" than "repeatable calculations." SportingFlyer T·C 21:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Downloading the UN data and uploading here is against their terms of use but my thoughts are that it is not a breach of copyright because the information has been sufficiently transformed. I think WP policy is to respect copyright but not terms of use. I'm not sure because I personally try to respect both. Database rights? No idea. I'm not at all sure how useful this table is (would it not be better to discuss the area of interest in an article and link to the UN?) but I don't think that is an sufficient reason for deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't "transformed" the work at all, simply reformatted it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maybe you are right. The spreadsheet I looked at (with the same figures) was in quite a different format but perhaps I looked at the wrong one. Another consideration: these figures are not merely counted numbers, i.e. not "facts". Rather, they have been produced using a (mathematical) process that is arguably "creative" to a lawyer. And perhaps a valid copyright claim can be made on that basis. I don't know. Thincat (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number can be a valid scientific observation or estimate, or it can be a creative work of the human imagination, but it can't be both. Creativity implied someone had an option to change those numbers to tell some other story. Wnt (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion should focus on notability, and on whether these data are copyrightable. Neither is particularly clear from the discussion above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RAWDATA. I'm also unable to figure out exactly what source was used. There's an external link that gets you to https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population/, where you can find a large number of spreadsheets. I can't tell which of those was used to generate this table, so fails WP:V in its current state. I don't honestly know if this is a WP:CV, but it certainly violates the UN's Terms Of Use, which says, The United Nations grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works. This clearly violates that. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found the source spreadsheet, which the first one on the "Probabilistic Projections" tab ([5]). I think if the article survives AfD, then the sourcing and additional methodoligy criteria of how this data was constructed should be added to the WP article so that a reader can see exactly where it came from, and what it represents (e.g. assumptions etc.). Otherwise it is useless to a reader, and just junk. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the COPYVIO concerns, however, I feel that we need some specialist input here; particularly given that there are many WP articles that are effectively "data tables" of other global NGO-type organistations (e.g. our GDP-GNI data tables, and many many more). Should we ping a WP copyvio specialist to this AfD (e.g Dianna)? If we can sort the copyvio one way or another (e.g. is it a WP:G12 or not), then now that I have found the source, we could repair this article. It is very intersting and informative imho. Britishfinance (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on copyright / licensing; I certainly agree that we should have input from somebody who is. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as the question here really isn't whether it's notable but whether the methodology used by the U.N. is "creative" or whether these are being presented as facts. If there's "creativity" in the methodology (and I think there is), especially given the U.N. license then it's a copyvio. SportingFlyer T·C 00:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Per above comments (and additional comment below re WP:NFC); could we get some expert opinion on the COPYVIO issues raised in this AfD, before we try to address the other issues on sourcing etc. thanks Britishfinance (talk)

Comment This deletion request is without obvious merit. The arguments for deletion require too much speculation to succeed. Noct urnalnow (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: COPYVIO shouldn't be a concern here as lists or data sets don't apply, only prose, per WP:NFC. And if citing Wikipedia in a shooting manifesto is grounds for deletion then I think we'd see an increase in shootings. (For the humour-deficient, I'm saying the argument that we should delete it because it was cited in the Christchurch shooter's manifesto is rubbish.) SITH (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some discussion on how this passes the NFC and whether data that is presumably a unique data set can be creative or not. What is the copyright status of the original UN report?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At first it appeared to me that it was a simple list of raw data, which would not contain any creative content, and thus not be copyrightable. However (after being pinged to offer an opinion and thinking about it for a few hours) I don't think that's actually the case. Countries are grouped as "medium-fertility" if their children per woman is declining but is still somewhere above 2.1 per woman. That seems straightforward enough, but this page, which describes the process of obtaining the final data, says that a number of different variables unique to each country such as mortality, AIDS status, and migration are taken into account to obtain the final result. Therefore my opinion is that the data in this series of UN tables contain enough creative expression to qualify for copyright protection and should not be republished here in their entirety. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 29 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emory Atkins[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sourcing only from youtube and a blog, plus a couple of other non-RS. Fails GNG and NARTIST. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 17:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the deletion of this page. The individual is noteworthy because he is a part of two bands that are inducted into the Texas Gospel Music Hall Of Fame. This fact is documented and without question. He has a lengthy discography that is also documented. The only serious objections I can find in these discussions is a lack of newspaper articles in citation. The Internet, as we know it, did not exist at the time; consequently, most articles are on microfilm but not accessible via the Internet. He is clearly listed on the albums, in name and by photos, and various articles have been posted in reference to the band, including recognition by the National Academy Of Recording Arts and Sciences as being a finalist for the 1979 Grammy Award (Mercy River Boys). In time, more information from microfilm may be available to cite. I have been in contact with a former band member regarding an upcoming book that is in print. I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor but I am a professional historian. I believe this individual is deserving of this recognition and that is why I created the page. Others may disagree, that’s ok but others who are far less noteworthy are listed on this site. Our purpose should be to catalogue those people who achieve success in their respective fields or endeavors. One would think anyone inducted into the Texas Gospel Music Hall Of Fame would be noteworthy? JMA1984 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMA1984 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise (musical group)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Mercy River Boys. Sourcing from Youtube and a music blog.. only. Not sufficient. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You missed the Facebook post. The YouTube videos are not provided by the copyright holder which means they're copyright violations as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 17:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Hill[edit]

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

Prior article on this person was deleted for failing notability criteria. The poster has simply re-created it without addressing the notability issues. It should therefore be deleted immediately. Dkendr (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Hill belongs on Wikipedia and has abundant credits to support that. The article is cited substantially. I will add sections and otherwise do whatever work I can to make it stronger. But I feel her presence here is merited and important for the broader audience, for comedy, and for women in comedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppydownsinternational (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She clearly merits an article and there seem to be enough cited sources here to meet the notability requirement. Like many new pages, it could use improvement, but shouldn't be up for deletion. Per the guidelines: "Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved." Deletion is not appropriate here. StaceyEOB (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point @StaceyEOB - the prior resolution was actually "move to draft." By the poster's admission the article isn't ready for prime time so Move to Draft again might be a better option. Dkendr (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with first AfD, the sourcing seems minor, the best of the lot is the LA Weekly story about a pilot for a comedy series, that apparently never happened. She is an actual comedian, but notability appears to have never happened, at least, not yet. If anyone manages to source it up to speed, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep The article needs development. The subject appears to be notable Lubbad85 (talk) 20:20, 25 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 Comilla#Media. There is a clear unopposed consensus that it should have been redirected per WP:ATD. No need for leaving it another 7 days (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comillar Kagoj[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed Notability. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "Media" section of place of publication, Comilla#Media. --Worldbruce (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:28, 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 merge to Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMix. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution: Best of Cool Dancers[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG which says we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I am not able to find literally anything in my searches (does not help the game released only in Japan). The article includes 1 press release from Konami, 1 Konami reference, 1 reference that shows how Nintendo hardware looked and 1 is a song list reference. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and I'd suggest being bold and redirecting other ones lacking sources and notability to the series article. TarkusAB^talk 23:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMix. No sign of significant coverage, and it is essentially just a variant of 2ndMix. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Not notable enough for a standalone article so merge seems a sensible option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - per Pax:Vobiscum. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:04, 25 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flubit[edit]

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

Shameless commercial self-promotion by SPA. Small amount of coverage in niche publications. Far short of what I'd consider significant in order to meet the most basic WP:GNG criteria. The company's following on social media etc supports the argument that it is a small company with a relatively insignificant following that is using this page to give it further credence. Rayman60 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real references as most cite confirm its existence and is the usual churnalism mentions. If references could be found it would be a rewrite and/or heavy copyedit. scope_creep^Talk 10:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:27, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lae Garden and Landscapes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Article makes no claim of notability; appears to be a WP:MILL small business. Searching finds only directory-type listings. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. MB 14:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the nominator's argument. Though the company alleges to be going for 30 years, there's no suggestion anywhere online to suggest it's ever done anything wich wuld have attracted substantial non-industry media coverage. Sionk (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' apparent PROMO for a non-notable landscaping company.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searches are not finding online sources to indicate notability for the firm or the associated Farmlae Garden Bazaar. The present article text makes no claim for notability, though a previous version did, although with promotional tone. The existence of print sources was decisive in withdrawing the previous AfD; they are awkward to evaluate but I am seeing no indication that they went beyond supporting the basic fact that this is a firm being contracted to go about its business. I don't see enough to meet the current WP:NCORP standard. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 27 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. A possible redirect can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is a Dog[edit]

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

Non notable album by Tinpan Orange. Doesn't cite any sources. Article has one external link which is dead. The article's content hasn't even been changed since 2016. Fails WP:NALBUM, WP:GNG. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinpan Orange. It does get a bit of coverage, but I cannot see anything quickly that stands out. Aoziwe (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald about the album's release [6]... admittedly primary material, but it does give some background information. There's a review of the record in the Melbourne newspaper The Age [7] and apparently another one in the Australian edition of Rolling Stone, although as the magazine closed last year, there's no online archive to be able to check. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links provided by Richard3120 are enough for WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doctorhawkes: Why would you say "Keep"? That page is one sentence long. It miserably fails WP:Standalone, WP:NAlbums, and WP:GNG. That page is not worth keeping. Horizonlove (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The test of GNG is not whether the article is good (it is not), but whether sufficient sources exist to confirm it's notability (they do, IMHO). if the decision is "keep", I'll make the effort to expand it after.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to redirect to Tinpan Orange, it is just one sentence long. There is also no reason to "keep" it. It would be misleading to the keep the page, especially in its current state, by making readers think there is more information when they click on Love is a Dog link to read more about the album and find out the page is only a sentence long. Horizonlove (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. It's easy to see someone search for the album on here via the search bar and redirect back to the artist. – The Grid (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinpan Orange. Still a valid serach term even if there isn't enough to sustain a separate article. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Doctorhawkes. Additional sources: 1, 2, and 3. @Richard3120: RS' review is here. Meets WP:NALBUM.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per PC78. Keeping simply isn't reasonable in the case of a 1-line article. Mosaicberry (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage identified. Comments about the existing state of the article are missing the obvious, It can be improved. For the most part afds should judge the notability of the subject, not the existing article (exceptions do apply, promotion, copyvio BLP concerns, and others that do not apply here). duffbeerforme (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced, one sentence blurb. Trillfendi (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tinpan Orange. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:03, 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) 16:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Medicus[edit]

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

h-index of 6, most cited work has 33 citations, doesn't appear to pass WP:NSCHOLAR, and definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Appears to have been written by someone with a close connection. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Productive scientist, but not encyclopedia-notable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Citability is low and nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Don't Delete I have known Gerhard Medicus for over 30 years as a brilliant thinker and theoretician at congresses and in publications. He has managed to establish connections between different humanities disciplines based on the theory of evolution. His innovative thinking has been able to build bridges between disciplines such as biology, ethology, psychology, psychiatry and sociolo-gy. His latest book creates a theoretical basis for a comprehensive connec-tion between body and mind sciences. I think the entry is extremely justified. 217.240.242.198 (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Dr. Joachim Bensel[reply]
Don't delete, as far as I understand your system of not adequate articles for en.wikipedia.org it seems difficult to understand for user of others wikis. E. g. Productive scientist, but not encyclopedia-notable: scientists are encyclopedia-notable or how do you want to distinguish which information is important or unimportant for posterity? The family Medicus is an old, in Salzburg rooted family with family members who participated in the creation of the "Hohe Tauern National Park" in Austrian and a historian of the city of Salzburg, his brother, who put this article here online. If an encyclopedia only allows articles about people with a great international reputation, it's not actually a lexicon anymore. The delete mode refers to - at least for me - not completely comprehensible, based on cumbersome guidelines for personal articles. The encyclopedia world exists not only of English-speaking personalities - you should be a little bit more open for the rest of the world. I am an experienced adiminstrators of the "Salzburgwiki" (since 2007) and "EnnstalWiki" (since 2010) in Austria and and I think that I can therefore rate this article as thoroughly worth preserving. Mosaico (talk) 11:55, 25 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Taranto[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST notability requirements. I think the first sentence of the article makes the argument to delete for me. He is "perhaps best known for his role as Gomez on The New Addams Family" Rusf10 (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 05:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:ARTIST requirements, I think Mr. Taranto has "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". In my opinion, most people (especially 90's kids) might best know him as Gomez Addams from "The New Addams Family" which aired internationally on popular children's networks such as Fox Kids, but his filmography certainly includes other note-worthy movies & TV shows as well. Bugtrio | Talk 17:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- concur w/ Bugtrio.Djflem (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:11, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marico (given name)[edit]

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

Is this a notable name? I do not see any real person with this name. Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ok... sorry for three consecutive edits. I searched for the name and initially thought there were people with this name, but I must have been misspelling it. As I do not see anyone with this name on WP, delete. It does not appear to be a notable name and is unfit for a DAB page. Further, creator appears to have created the article to promote their deviant art account. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mariko (given name), the name Marico, is a rare variant of the original spelling. Kaithehedgefox (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention in the article is that Marico "It comes from a misspelling of the Italian name Mario." How can it also be a variant of a Japanese given name? It almost seems like you're making things up... ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's variant because it's also an alternative spelling of Marico. The reason why it's a unisex name because it ends in -co/-ko. Kaithehedgefox (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)kaithehedgefoxKaithehedgefox (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear effort to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion for an art project. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion (see WP:NOTPROMO). Additionally, the remaining article text is unsourced WP:OR, which is also prohibited by policy. Finally, I note that the suggestion to redirect above comes from the article creator, an editor whose talk page is littered with notices of deleted redirects that they have previously created. There has been enough time wasted here, I think. Bakazaka (talk) 22:54, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adewunmi Emoruwa[edit]

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

Seems like a whole lot of self promotion and puffery without adequate sourcing. They're quite a bunch of passing mentions but nothing In-depth on subject and fails WP:SIGCOV.

It's WP:TOOSOON Lapablo (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very poor sourcing and overt promotion. None of the references talk about him in detail.– Ammarpad (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you see garbage like this you have to wonder if the creator has a close connection with the subject.... Trillfendi (talk) 18:54, 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. The arguments for keep, especially the comment by Britishfinance, show there's more to this than WP:POLITICIAN ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Despite the template below, this was not properly relisted; that is, it was kept on the original daily log page. Didn't impact the close, but wanted to note the inconsistency. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Haq Nur[edit]

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

Failed WP:POLITICIAN. should be redirected 2018 Bangladesh quota reform movement per WP: SINGLEEVENT. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 15:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. --Hiwilms (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. Nurul Haq is the most significant and most discussed activist of Bangladesh from the last three decades. He is already trending in the Bengali wikipedia. All the national dailies, televisions, and radios are covering his work every hour every day. Thanks. - St.teresa (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Bangladesh, he is far more significant than any of these student leaders already included in Wikipedia: Sarah Chadwick, Jaclyn Corin, Ryan Deitsch, Alfonso Calderon (activist), Emma González, David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, Alex Wind, etc. Thanks. - St.teresa (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even as per both WP:POLITICIAN and WP: SINGLEEVENT, Nurul Haq is notable in every sense. As per WP:POLITICIAN, Haq is most notable in the recent history of Bangladesh because no other activist receives as much media coverage as he does, and as per WP: SINGLEEVENT, if "media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified." Then again, this is not a case of single event as the person is involved in many notable events in Bangladesh. The article is not deletable in accordance with any wikipedia policy. Thanks. - St.teresa (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree As per WP:1E if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. He is being focused for last 3 years constantly for central and important mass uprisings. I think this title deserves a separate title. --Nahid Hossain (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is connected with several political/activist movements in Bangladesh (student movement, and quota system movement), per his interviews and WP:RS coverage below (and in the article); all of which have their own WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as WP:POLITICIAN and WP: SINGLEEVENT he is notable.as A DUCSU VP and Quota Reform Movement Main Leader, he is not ignorable. You can check the view of this page log for the credibility. -- Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though Dacsu VP is not good enough condition for staying in Wikipedia, but he has been widely discussed in the quota reform movement. As a result, he led one of the biggest movement in the history of the country. He did not appear only on the news of the quota movements, he himself has been discussing beyond that. There have been many incidents centered around him. In short, he was at the center of discussion for a long time. So, I have an opinion on keeping the article. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. . He is not properly a politician person. His news has been made to elect against the Bangladesh Chhatra League. —Swe123123 (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't to meet WP:POLITICIAN as he meets WP:GNG (see my comments below), the most fundamental WP criteria. Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 06:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Failing WP:POLITICIAN is not relevent here (plus, the subject is an activist and not part of the mainstream political process at this stage). The subject definately meets WP:GNG with coverage and interviews in several WP:RS, such as: Bdnews24.com [8], Dhaka Tribune [9] and The Daily Star (Bangladesh) [10] (which is a WP:SIGCOV). These (and several others that I can see online) are proper interviews on the subject in notable quality independent publications. That is WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 00:27, 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 withdrawn. Rusf10 (talk)

Hudson River Monster[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH of two different news stories, more than 100 years apart. The second of which is about a manatee and alone would fall under WP:NOTNEWS Rusf10 (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nom, Hath Scotland not its Nessie? Hath Oregon not its Foot? Why depriveth thou this River Vallie of its Kipsie? Also, I sourced it. WP:SIGCOV).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added another reference, but particularly note American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An Encyclopedia of American Folklore: it's an academic encyclopaedia that managed to sustain a fairly substantial entry on this subject, so there's no reason why Wikipedia can't manage the same. Overall, I think the sources cited meet the 'significant coverage' required by WP:GNG. Alarichall (talk) 22:56, 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. No valid reason given for deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nai (caste)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nai (caste)

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

Reason Ajnabh (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC) This article doesn't show nai caste history and doesn't respond on talk page this article doesn't describe nai cast with full respect and not include full caste name and not include all nai surnames and nai caste article doesn't have citations and reference.[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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~assuming this nomination is for the article Nai (caste) and not some other page.~~ ‘Doesn’t show history’ is not a reason for deletion. ‘Doesn’t describe Nai caste with full respect’ is not a reason for deletion. Anyone is free to edit the content if they wish to. Saying the article doesn’t have citations and refs just isn’t true. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What i right is all true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC) Nai (caste) only give citations about state nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 11:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC) OBC only show economically Backwardness nothing else what that meaning,What connection with Nai Caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 11:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Article is very properly sourced. Don't see why it was nominated. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 15:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article about OBC not about nai cast it should be delete Speedily or name it information about obc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 16:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The article you nominated for deletion is CLEARLY about the Nai caste. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 18:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According my opinion nai caste page doesn't represent Nai caste properly . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC) And who doesn't see any mistake in Nai caste article let me tell everyone nai doesn't adopted surname from bramhan Sharma are using by them because they are bramha kshatriya or rajrishi and (gohil)is not surname of Nai caste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 02:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) And they divided into vaghela parmara question when — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 02:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep defective nomination. If there is a content or naming dispute, the article should be edited or a discussion about a renaming should be started on the article's talk page. Formally, the article appears properly sourced and the topic is notable. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 13:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be publish on Wikipedia because of the information is giving is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Ex =basic information almost all information is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajnabh (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Pervette[edit]

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

Overly promotional article on non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current coverage is primary, non reliable or passing mentions, nothing good for GNG. A search found nothing better. Very recently deleted at Domina Colette for promotion and no indication of notability. Speedy for promotion removed, complete with adhom, by a newly created SPA. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very promotional article/advert for the subject and their business interests that is a case of WP:PROMO. Also the subject does not pass WP:BASIC as the references are not independent as either written by the subject or interview with no independent prose; the most reliable source is The NYT but the subject only gets a brief mention which does not verify much at all, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I haven't had a chance to respond or revise due to a good ol' California eviction that has taken over my life... I hear what you're saying, I don't necessarily agree although I had planned to revise it some more. Keepin' it real concise. Stay tuned. Olivettilly (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional Lubbad85 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO lacking sources to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:30, 27 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Penga[edit]

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

Autobio, Fails WP:ANYBIO, and is written in a promotional tone. Daiyusha (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not fluent in Greek, but by searching her name in Greek, there are lots of sources. I've added a few. I think it's likely that she may pass GNG, but someone fluent should look at this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:40, 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 01:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article itself is a complete mess and could use a massive rewrite, a search using her Greek name on Google appears to generate a lot of sources that prove likely notability including Culture Now, Popganda, epixeiro, lifo, numerous articles in Athens Voice, cosmopoliti, athinorama and more. She also appears to pass notability for Greek Wikipedia. These references date over a period of several years. Article is ugly and needs a complete rewrite by a native Greek speaker, but Greek sources appear to confirm notability. --LauraHale (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the (quite prestigious in Greece) Ouranis Foundation award she received for one of her books and the fact that she was one of the screenplay writers of an awarded Greek film (at the Thessaloniki Film Festival) is suffient evidence of notability. On the other hand, the article was actually a product of WP:COI, with a highly promotional tone. The most striking pieces of self-promotional "creative inaccuracies" have been removed or corrected. There is still clean-up editing to be done in order for the article to meet the WP standards of appearance and references/sources. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Article is improved with reliable sources to show subject is notable. Lubbad85 (talk) 13:48, 25 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Ravenscroft[edit]

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

Actor who I am having trouble finding anything for. I can't find that much outside of Wikipedia mirrors as well for him. Wgolf (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as has only one minor role in a notable production and one producing credit so does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:Creative at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't done enough yet to merit an encyclopedia article. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 27 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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At-Tahur Limited[edit]

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

No coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but has minor coverage.^[1] Mosaicberry (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22At-Tahur+Limited%22+-wikipedia

Keep - The company and its products have had coverage, though not to the extent mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH. Plus the company is listed on the country's only stock exchange; that goes towards having notability. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 18:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If listed on the stock exchange and also has notable media coverage, it's notable (per WP:LISTED). A Google search shows that the company has notable coverage. Not a small mom-and-pop business either as the revenue shows. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:23, 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 02:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for barely passing WP:GNG. samee converse 08:56, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahogany Sessions[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence this is notable, all that can be found are press releases, blogs and otherwise non-reliable sources (and maybe a few hyper local.) Fails NCREATIVE and so do it's founders. Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Article violated WP:NOTADVERTISING} and it's Not notable in itself. And I think this Article is advertising a Youtube channel too. so I think it should be delete.Forest90 (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#Principles. Determining whether YouTube channels are notable or not can be tricky. I think this one may not be notable. Top video has 10 million views, but we need more reliable secondary sources to actually be able to consider this as a notable article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesnt violate WP:ADVERTISING, as the article is too small to promote itself. The site video viewing figures are 160m on aggregate with 600k regular viewers, indicating an enormous amount of interaction. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

View count is not a reliable source that demonstrates notability - it's enough to negate an A7 but does not mean a subject is suitable just because a bunch of people watched their channel - as previously discussed, follower numbers, views etc...are all easily inflated. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I accepted this at AfC based on [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Though the nom has issues with these sources, I still believe, as a whole, they adequately demonstrate notability. ~Kvng (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a problem with unreliable sources that don't demonstrate notability. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked over this more carefully and it appears to meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#Principles. We'll need more references of course. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The YouTube project notability standards are not accepted by the community and should not be considered. The sources shown by KVNG are not reliable. MusicAlly is a PR firm (see [15]), weekend special is also promoting an event and is not coverage by a reliable independent secondary source, Steve, Christopher, and Mark seem like nice blokes but do not operate a RS at talkaboutpopmusic ([16]), a program description from SXSW is also not reliable for the same reasons as weekend special. Of those four TalkAboutPopMusic is the only one that could make a reasonable claim to being RS and it seems to be pretty clearly a three person form of WP:UGC. As for the views, those are easily manipulated and should not be considered for purposes of notability. If someone has become large enough of YouTube reliable sources will cover them. That is not the case here. This is a clear delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Marshall, Texas[edit]

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

Unnecessary spinout article. Besides being poorly sourced and full of trivial information, controversy sections violates WP:NOTNEWS Rusf10 (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Marshall is not a large enough and important enough town to have a standalone article on its politics in my opinion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cwmhiraeth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question here should not be about size of jurisdiction (as it is for biographies), but whether the information contained within can be reliably-sourced. --Enos733 (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unjustified WP:SPINOUT that duplicates existing content in Marshall, Texas. This article is obviously a WP:COATRACK for the unencyclopedic National Controversies section. Bakazaka (talk) 22:05, 26 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 04:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of high school a cappella groups[edit]

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

Few if not none of the entries in the list have their own articles. Highschool acapella groups shouldn't be notable in most cases, the creator also added some criteria for inclusion into this list, maybe we can modify the criteria. Or more likely delete this list of non notable music groups. Daiyusha (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. John from Idegon (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this article is a mess. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. Trillfendi (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a worthwhile list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:37, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Trickett[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:NACTOR or GNG. Per a WP:BEFORE search, I could only find mentions of him in cast lists and such. No reliable, in depth coverage could be found. Kbabej (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:NACTOR, he hasn't played any major role in any movie and fails WP:GNG. Lapablo (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable actor. One of the references is a youtube video purporting to be an advert the actor appeared in. Yikes. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to meet notability requirement.Lubbad85 (talk) 20:26, 25 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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Medoff (attorney)[edit]

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

The entire notability here seems to rest on being interviewed once on 60 Minutes. Everything else is ancillary fluff (including the judicial proceedings, which did not in themselves receive any amount of coverage). Fails WP:NBIO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I came across this page while patrolling and felt it was borderline. Due to the limited content on the page, I think a merge to Xyleco, of which he is CEO, is appropriate. Citrivescence (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing notable about this person; see WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC; nothing worth merging. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E and there is almost no evidence of notability apart from that interview. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 15:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject's primary source of notability, as CEO of a company, is mentioned on the company's Wikipedia page. That's all the coverage this needs. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:29, 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 merge to Greg Lansky. Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vixen (adult film company)[edit]

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

An unremarkable production company; significant RS coverage not found. What comes up is routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The studio gets some non-trivial RS coverage ([1]) but not enough to satisfy WP:CORP. Almost all coverage is about Greg Lansky with incidental mentions of Vixen. The article is a promotional mess without good secondary sources to back up its claims. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:RS, came across a few passing mentions but nothing enough to establish notability. Lapablo (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick search did produce articles where Vixen was mentioned in addition to the other two companies, but still central to article and not trivial. I do agree that the article could use some cleaning up though. Jacobbailer (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a minute there I wondered why this was up for deletion, but then I realized I had it confused with the actually notable "Vivid" (dyslexia, I tell ya...). Anyway, awards don't automatically equal notability. The notability does not seem to be independent here. Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Greg Lansky. All notable mentions of Vixen are related to Lansky. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do think that should be merged with Greg Lansky who is WP-notable, and there is overlap with awards ascribed to him or his company. It would also help to improve/increase his BLP as he seems like an important figure in the industry. If Vixen becomes bigger, then it can be split out later on? Britishfinance (talk) 12:19, 26 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Playster[edit]

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

Involved in frauds/scams with their customers , using WP as their promotional hub. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, no real coverage found. Störm (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. Of the 16 references, 5 or 6 are dead and the rest discuss the launch. Very poor referencing. Also fails WP:SIGCOV. No real coverage. scope_creep^Talk 12:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 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. In the absence of any sources, there doesn't appear to be any content for merging. No prejudice against the creation of a possible redirect if desirable. Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North West Pacific Football League[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find references (primary or secondary) that cover this topic in any detail. BLAIXX 17:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I could not find any sources that meet GNG requirements (most are Wikipedia mirrors) --Danski454 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 13:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to United States Australian Football League. Not notable in tis own right. Aoziwe (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: there isn't any sourced content in this article that can be merged. Given that this was (presumably) a Canadian-based league, if a redirect is created it should be to Australian rules football in Canada. BLAIXX 13:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the content is minimal. I was thinking essentially of just the list of the individual clubs that made up the league over time, to be merged. US or C. I am not fussed. My reading of it was that it crossed the border, so then perhaps a referral between the two? Aoziwe (talk) 01:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

György Gát[edit]

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

Insufficient notability; BLP with no sources Sirlanz 01:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there's actually a fairly clear claim to notability -- first independent TV producer in Hungary, as well as creator of several nationally aired shows. It does have insufficient sources -- however, the Hungarian language version of the article seems to have several citations. Someone with the appropriate language skills should be able to move them over. matt91486 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Eastern name order is used in Hungarian, so most sources will use the form "Gát György":

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a BLPPROD as it was unsourced - since that time, sources have been added, and per them individual appears notable. Passes GNG, per my approximation, though I don't read Hungarian so I can't assess some of the sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that the sources I have added to this article demonstrate notability. The subject's production, Linda, was clearly ground-breaking in communist Hungary, and he has followed that up with more notable work. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of references to reliable sources that demonstrate that WP:Creative is met and the article should remain Atlantic306 (talk) 20:03, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Everett[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose: Hugely notable artist. Instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources. werldwayd (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have to be reliable sources to improve it with before "instead of deleting the information, try to improve with more reliable sources" is the magic word. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. The references here are primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence, not reliable source coverage about him. And it's not enough to just say SOFIXIT, because anybody can simply say that about any topic — saving a badly sourced article does not hinge on simply theorizing that maybe better sources might exist, it hinges on showing hard evidence that better sources definitely do exist. So I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually show a better quality of sourcing than my searches have been able to find — but it's not enough to just say that the sourcing needs to be improved if you don't show any actual evidence that the sourcing can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete source it or lose it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart S. Janney III[edit]

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

Subject does not pass the muster at WP:BIO and WP:GNG as most of the coverage is non-substantive and/or backed by primary sources. Some of the sources cover relatives of the individual, however notability is not WP:INHERITED. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person. "American heir"? Makes no sense. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing doesn't indicate notability. Simply being an "heir", especially one who's own parents aren't notable enough heirs to merit their own articles, doesn't establish notability, which we all know is not inherited. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:03, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth (Des Moines)[edit]

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

Not notable. Not even complete. Only coverage is local. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with the sourcing. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Des Moines Register is not local - it is an Illinois state publication of record. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually in Iowa, but that's okay! Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Project of regional importance. Good sourcing. "Not even complete" is not a deletion criteria.Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Lang (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Biographical article about someone who doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references found are from Primary sources and no independent sources. Fails WP:RS as well. Lapablo (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO with a strong whiff of WP:UPE. Bakazaka (talk) 21:55, 26 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 Sex trafficking#Campaigns and initiatives. (non-admin closure) KCVelaga (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buying Sex Is A Crime[edit]

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

WP:NEO. Seems to be trying to promote the use of the phrase rather than discussing how reliable sources already use it. By admission of the article itself, advocacy groups didn't start the campaign until 2 years ago, so this is a freshly minted phrase not yet ripe for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sex trafficking#Campaigns and initiatives. This is a slogan, not a separate topic in and of itself. It would be better to merge and/or redirect this information to the article where the campaigns this slogan represents are covered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sex trafficking#Campaigns and initiatives. Per above. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per arguments above. Not enough focused coverage. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sex trafficking#Campaigns and initiatives. Lubbad85 (talk) 21:36, 25 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.

[1] ttps://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22At-Tahur+Limited%22+-wikipedia

[1]