Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 March	25 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. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Patrick Barnes[edit]

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

City councilman, Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Was deprodded by a editor who agreed that this the article fails notability, but wanted an AFD. Rusf10 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Columbia MO is not a global city for the purposes of getting a city councillor over WP:NPOL #2 the easy way, so its city councillors only get into Wikipedia if they make it the harder way: show a depth of substance and sourcing that marks them out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. That's not what's in evidence here, however. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Notability per nom. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep , withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Simpson[edit]

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

It's been 12 years since the last AfD for this article, but I think it's still shy of meeting WP:GNG or other guidelines. All coverage in reliable sources appears to be quite trivial; I can find almost no biographical information about the subject in reliable sources beyond their involvement in a few projects of minor notability. The most significant coverage that I've seen between the sources provided and an internet search is this. Additionally, it may be worth noting that some of the article's claims about Tacocopter, one of Simpson's more notable projects, appears to be misleading based on this Wired article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Seems no better than the last time it was created, clear delete then and still is. Does not meet WP:GNG. W C M_email 08:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck due to significant improvement in the article and sourcing since I commented. W C M_email 15:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While tacocopter was indeed just a concept that generated high press hype, the subject's arrest at the train station was a fairly prominent and real news event of the day, indicative of post 9/11 moods. Bradtem (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Wired article referenced above has undisclosed NPV issues. The Chief Editor of Wired at the time, Chris Anderson, was in the process of raising money for his own drone startup, 3DR. The article has other technical inaccuracies, such as referring to Simpson's electronic art as a "hoax explosive device" and referencing Dustin Boyer as a co-founder, despite him having no official association with the project (beyond what he claims). Taking other articles on TacoCopter into account suggests that while it wasn't structured in a way to grow to a functioning company, because of regulatory issues, it did perform a technical demonstration of the underlying concept with real hardware. Cjhandmer (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simpson's former delete page makes several strong points for conditional keep, in the event that Simpson achieved attention for more than the arrest at Boston Logan. Since then Simpson has fairly routinely achieved coverage in national and international news sources in areas related to UAVs, electronic art, and the maker movement. Simpson is one of the most prominent hardware-oriented makers of her generation, and certainly among women of color. I concede that better sourcing is needed for biographical detail and am in the process of improving the article in this regard. Cjhandmer (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went into this conversation thinking that I might vote to delete, but I did some more searching for sources about Simpson before making a decision. Beyond the Boston Logan arrest, I found numerous articles in the New York Times, Forbes, The Verge, and Vanity Fair that covered Simpson's life and work. The story that convinced me to vote to keep this article was learning about Star's role as the central source in a 2018 New York Times investigation that motivated over 20,000 Google employees worldwide to walk out in protest of the company's handling of sexual harassment claims. This story led to the resignation of multiple Google executives in 2018. I have updated the article to include those sources. Given Simpson's status as an internationally-recognized whistleblower, I vote that the article should remain. Rubberpaw (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Internationally recognized whistleblower: ✓, One of the most prominent women of color in the hardware maker community: ✓, and of course, arrested during a post 9/11 bomb scare that also created international headlines: ✓. Though the article could be cut down and edited. 73.92.231.99 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I've been swayed by arguments and would be happy to withdraw the AfD, but as ~~Bradtem~~ WCM also voted delete, they need to agree as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did not vote delete, I left a comment moderately in favour. Where do you get I voted delete? While tacocopter was a concept rather than real service, it was a notable concept. Bradtem (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bradtem, sorry, I copied the wrong name, I meant to ping User:Wee Curry Monster _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV and subsequently WP:BIO. A solid keep. I see it has been Afd withdrawn. The consensus is for a keep. I will close this. scope_creep^Talk 13:42, 28 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. I appreciate the hard work that has gone into improving the article and am now satisified that notability has been met. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Kashmir[edit]

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

Tagged with a notability concern since 2012. The article doesn't describe censorship in Kashmir in general, rather a single event from 2010 that doesn't seem to have significance long-term, failing WP:NOTNEWS. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no point in deleting this article because this is a serious issue and it is properly referenced. If someone is interested in editing it further, they should be allowed to do it. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's clear that this topic meets the general notability criterion that the topic should have been the subject of significant independent coverage. At the moment, the inline references in the article focus on particular media blackouts, but a look at scholar.google.com shows that there's a wider academic discussion of censorship in Kashmir too. I've added Censorship in Kashmir#Further reading to evidence this. It would be easy to add extra news reports on individual episodes of censorship, but I hope the academic bibliography is enough to show notability. Alarichall (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. The referencing is sound. MidwestSalamander (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that this topic meets general notability criterion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The text has been improved since the nomination. Just as there are many articles ceated many years ago that get proposed for deletion, so we have tags that are many years old and no longer serve their purpose. On the basis of improvements, the contested article passes WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 18:52, 31 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of terrorism on French tourism[edit]

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

Very much reads like a personal essay, reflection on a topic or study notes. WP:NOT. Unclear sourcing _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Some sort of essay. WP:NOT. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfocused and of no use to the reader. Mccapra (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article should be merged either to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourism_in_France or to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_France, more likely the latter, to simply delete everything would be a waste. Garlicolive (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Garlicolive: I agree that there is merit to add a section about the effects of terrorism on French tourism to one or both of those articles. However, there is little of substance to salvage from this article as the writing style is very much like an essay or opinion piece. Adding a section or paragraph to those articles would essentially be a complete rewrite. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know french, if this article needs to be rewritten from the french sources then that complicate things, unless new sources are found, but in this case, regardless, then this article cannot be useful for me, anyway. Garlicolive (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a High School English or Social Science class. Essay only.VViking_TalkEdits 21:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because its original research. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, the article looks like an essay. Alex-h (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:HEYMANN upgrade needed on notable topic. Here is some of the coverage in the NYTimes:~~

A Year After Paris Attacks, Challenges for Hotels and Restaurants

A Year After Paris Attacks, Challenges for Hotels and Restaurants

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/business/international/france-shootings-economy.html

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/world/europe/paris-tourism.html Paris Tourism Has Recovered From 2015 Attacks, Officials Say

~~Note to closing administrator, please consider rolling this one over for a week, to give editors time to improve article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. On second thought, it really is a terrible essay. No prejudice against a well-writtern , well-sourced page on the topic should an editor put the essay into writing one - the impact of the terror attacks (especially 2015 attack) on tourism was a major hit to the French economy and was widely covered in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contrived subject for an article, better presented within a larger context. It also reads awfully close to an essay, either on a personal initiative or as an educational project. On that basis, we should Delete the whole thing or, possibly, and mercifully, Merge what can be salvaged onto the "Tourism in France" article. -The Gnome (talk) 18:59, 31 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)} 22:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair competition: Uber vs taxis and Airbnb vs hotels[edit]

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

Very much reads like a personal essay, reflection on a topic or study notes. WP:NOT. Unclear sourcing. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Some sort of essay. WP:NOT. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A piece of POV writing. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I agree with the other users here, essay, POV writing, and completely no inline citations. VViking_TalkEdits 13:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obv. way outside of a scope. --mikeu ^talk 23:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV writing. Alex-h (talk) 17:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this personal essay on a subject that is essentially contrived. -The Gnome (talk) 19:00, 31 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A potential "business as usual" Brexit ?[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article. Very much reads like a personal essay or reflection on a topic. WP:NOT _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Some sort of essay. WP:NOT. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have a horrible feeling that somewhere there is a well-intentioned teacher doing an editathon to get students whose first language is french to create new articles. It’s not going well. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear essay. SportingFlyer T·C 01:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly an essay not an encyclopaedia article. If this is part of a class project then I wouldn't object to temporary userfication to allow for the content to be retrieved by the author for use in a more appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. VViking_TalkEdits 21:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally agree with the above comments. This is definitely not a Wikipedia article, but an essay and it is unlikely it could ever be reworked into an article. Dunarc (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text of barely hidden propaganda. Why it was ever allowed to stay up is another small mystery. -The Gnome (talk) 19:02, 31 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)} 22:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit's consequences on Mauritius[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article. Very much reads like a personal essay or reflection on a topic. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Some sort of essay. WP:NOT. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails a bunch of WP:NOT, especially the essay portion. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is clearly an essay. It's not impossible that there is something here that could be useful at Economy of Mauritius but more likely is that the essay's sources will be useful for adding encyclopaedic content there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is clearly an essay agree with all aboveVViking_TalkEdits 21:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per all Above, Fails WP:NOT Alex-h (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Another personal work about an unworthy subject. -The Gnome (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fully agree with above points. Very similar case to the essay-like article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A potential "business as usual" Brexit ? which seems to have been created by the same user. Dunarc (talk) 19:45, 31 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. Tone 20:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WebRatio Platform[edit]

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

Paid-for corporate spam about non-notable software. Was draftified twice and tendentiously moved back to mainspace by the author (who I have blocked for being a spam-only account). MER-C 19:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined. Even if this article had been written by someone without a conflict of interest, it's hard to see how it would demonstrate sufficient notability to be acceptable. --Yamla (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for references and found nothing suitable to show notability. It also looks like it extends beyond English Wikipedia (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRatio_Platform), although I cannot see the page due to the blackout. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to an utter lack of good references. MidwestSalamander (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poor promotional effort masquerading as a Wikipedia article, on the basis of, for starters, WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 19:08, 31 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. Sort of a "soft merge" as there isn't really much of a consensus here for want of participants. I am taking Mccapra's last comment as indicating that they might have changed their opinion towards a merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian legislative election, 2016 (Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr)[edit]

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

Article covering the results of national election for a single constituency, which is unnecessary and largely duplicates the content of the article on the constituency (to which anything useful and not already included could be merged). Also nominating the same for the following reason:

For a similar previous AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Lancashire) (which actually covered several constituencies). Number 5 7 18:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I contested the PRODs on these articles. They are well researched and well sourced. Most of the candidates are blue linked so appear notable in themselves. I just don’t see what the objection is to these articles. I don’t think ‘not necessary’ is a reason for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: Election results for individual constituencies are supposed to be summarised on the constituency article itself (as most of this already is at Tehran, Rey, Shemiranat and Eslamshahr (electoral district). If having results articles for each constituency for each election was deemed acceptable, it would add >10,000 articles just for the UK for the 20th century alone. We're probably talking about close to a million articles if this was copied across all countries. These are the primary reasons why these articles are unnecessary, and there is clear precedent. Number 57 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. If this is the norm you’re applying I don’t understand why didn’t you merge the articles rather than PROD them, except that because Iran has large multimember constituencies, trying to roll all this up into a single constituency article would be unworkable. These articles may have an unusually high level of detail but where is the harm in that? It seems to me to be a perfectly good way of presenting information that would be hard to present in any other format. Mccapra (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - ok I see that I’ve missed the critical fact that the info is already there on the constituency article. My fault for not not looking. Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:36, 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 speedy keep. The nomination lacks a valid reason to delete; its point about a single source is now erroneous and there is little support for it. See WP:SK and WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of deadliest animals to humans[edit]

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

(Copying my reasoning from Talk:List of deadliest animals to humans) This list is problematic in several ways:

It is copied from just one source.
The source gives no information about how this list was determined, so "due to any type of cause of death" has simply been made up by the person who wrote this article.
The source lists a total mish-mash of species, genera and higher-level taxons, for example all snakes are lumped together.
According to the source the 24th most deadly animal only killed one person. Of course there are more than 24 types of animal that have killed more than one person: think of all the deadly parasites, to start with. That is obvious nonsense so the source is obviously unreliable.
I'm sure there are many other reasons, but I've already listed more than enough to show that this whole article is complete bollocks.

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very easy to find sources. I just referenced some of the list. A lot of reliable sources mention the most deadly animals towards people, so it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 19:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 19:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No pretense of compliance with WP:Before. Lots of on line sources available, as would be proved if the nominator had bothered to click on the links at the top of this very page. This is the kind of article that folks looking to wikipedia need. WP:Not paper. To be sure, sourcing and links can (and should) be improved. But that is at bottom a content dispute, not a reason for WP:AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly encyclopedic. There's nothing wrong with article that cannot be fixed. Surachit (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TNT (the process of which has already begun) - sure, it might be notable, but in its current state, I don't think it's ready to be in mainspace. Move it to draft, fix it up, then move it back. If it's significantly improved by the time the discussion ends, consider this a keep. ansh 666 01:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll have to agree with the AFD proponent that the article has issues, but the article can be improved and is notable in itself, the reasons listed do not warrant a delete. Garlicolive (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the most deadliest animals to humans.... man?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states that humans come in second place to mosquitoes based on their yearly kill count. Dream Focus 22:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly encyclopedic. There's nothing wrong with article that cannot be fixed Lubbad85 (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is notable with a lot of WP:RS lists, like Telegraph, and notably, the Encyclopædia Britannica. The article however as noted by the nom has problems with some non-Encyclopædic sourcing (I removed one), and a composite list which is WP:OR terrority. I don't think the article is so bad that I would WP:TNT it, and the BBC is a decent RS, however, I only give it the benefit of the doubt because of the strong notability of the topic, which is the most dominant criteria. Britishfinance (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – A notable topic that meets WP:LISTN. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somewhat to my surprise. I do have a quibble with one entry: mosquitoes don't kill people - it is the mosquito-borne diseases. Maybe clarify in a footnote... --mikeu ^talk 00:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Obviously, mosquitoes don't kill people directly. Rather, they are the agent transmitting Mosquito-borne disease. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:39, 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.

Comment "List of deadliest animals to humans" - To get a list that actually measures what the article states you would need relative numbers not absolute ones: The vast majority of mosquitos we meet do not kill us. Same for humans. When meeting an angry hippo you should be more scared then when riding the subway everyday. There are just many mosqitoes and many humans - but both aren't very deadly as individuals. This is magazine-popular-science, it doesn't make a lot of sense - and i don't think its even supposed to. These list seem to be rather emotional and geared to please certain crowds. Why else would they include humans in the list? A world population of 7,800,000,000 people should makes it obvious that we're not exactly "deadly" to ourselves. I suspect it's there because it has a "wow"-factor and misanthropy has always been popular with certain crowds. Also if u count indirect killings like with the mosquito, shouldn't you count other indirect killings? What about allergic shocks? Humans transmit disease to other humans. I think what would really help that article is a list with relative numbers instead of absolute ones. A list that factors in things like the frequency of encounters. Unfortunately I don't think one exists. I think there's no need to change anything because it's actually obvious, but the lists on the article would accuratetly be called "Animals that as a group cause the most fatalities in humans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:1105:4901:3C47:DA05:ABFE:E979 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 R. J. Adams. Tone 20:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Missions of California[edit]

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

This article about some documentary video appears to be promotional (advertising), and does not meet notability standards. The References section is generic about the nominal subject of the video and the references are not about the video itself. R. S. Shaw (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to R. J. Adams. The documentary received a 200-word review by Mary Soete in Library Journal ("The Missions of California", Library Journal volume 124, issue 14, September 1, 1999, page 249) but otherwise does not seem to have received significant coverage in multiple independent RS, or really much coverage at all from anywhere. The article text is clearly promotional, and the reference list is misleading as the listed sources, as best I can tell, do not mention the film at all. But just in case someone searches for that specific title, there's no harm in redirecting to the film creator's article per WP:ATD-R. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the sound argument above and my own inability to find sources to help further. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:01, 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 speedy keep. The nomination doesn't have a reason to delete, the points it makes are now erroneous and there is no support for it. See WP:SK and WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Candida blankii[edit]

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

There's only one sentence here; seven words, of which two are the title of the article. MrDemeanour (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No pretense of complying with (or even considering) WP:Before. To be sure, article can be improved, but this is a content dispute, not a reason to WP:AFD. Ipse dixit does not apply here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article and sourcing has been greatly expanded. It is not what it was when nominated for deletion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~or merge(striking merge option since article has been expanded)~~ There are thousands of scientific articles like this on Wikipedia. People searching for it see where to click on to find more information elsewhere. Perhaps consider creating a list of all Candida and then merging some of the shorter candida articles together on it, with the larger ones having their own articles linked to. Candida oleophila Candida bromeliacearum Candida bracarensis etc. are rather short. Is there a bot to look through every article in a category and list their sizes, or compare references to see which ones have the same references and external links? Category:Candida_(fungus) has 29 entries. Dream Focus 19:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created List of Candida (fungus) as a possible merge target. Surely this has come up before, short articles like this existing throughout Wikipedia's history in large numbers. A community consensus on whether they are acceptable or should be merged should be had. Dream Focus 19:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a few references. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Species are inherently notable and many sources exist. See WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. There is no evidence of the nominator complying with WP:BEFORE, as there are a multitude of sources that can be found with a simple Google search. The article has also been expanded and improved since the original nomination. MarkZusab (talk) 20:05, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Taylor[edit]

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

The only source in the article I could actually verify is Citynet, & that's not enough.Google New sources are about other people with that name; additional ones in Google are either publicity or not helpful. Given the way Google works, the most prominent source advertising her is Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name sounds familiar but when you can’t verify anything then what’s the point of an article? Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NMODEL. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm, there practically nothing from GNEWS to ascertain WP:RS. Fails WP:NMODEL. Lapablo (talk) 20:01, 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. Tone 20:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J-Subculture[edit]

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

I PROD-ed this with the rationale Does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Two local stories along with social media links does not suffice for WP:NCORP. However, RockmanY left a message on my talk page here. I do not have a native understanding of Japanese so it is possible my Google Translate source searches were not up to scratch, so I am bringing it to AfD for the community to examine. SITH (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one of many proxy shopping services that verifiably exist but do not receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, much less to the level required by WP:NCORP. The purpose of the article is clearly to advertise the business, so the article falls under the policy "What Wikipedia is not", particularly this part of WP:NOTADVERTISING: "Wikipedia articles about a company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts". Bakazaka (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. The current sourcing clearly fails to demonstrate notability per WP:NCORP; I had a look for better sources using the links above, but didn't find anything - some WP:UGC reviews, some non-independent stuff, but nothing meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. It's possible a Japanese speaker might have more luck in finding sources, but with what's there now it's a delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. And start over. -The Gnome (talk) 19:10, 31 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. Tone 20:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Crilly[edit]

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

Lacked any independent sources since creation in March 2010 when it was created by a SPA who has made no other edits. I can't find any indepth coverage. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources provided are the subject's own writings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A.S. not notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Lubbad85 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable,Alex-h (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:AUTHOR. -The Gnome (talk) 19:11, 31 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. Tone 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry C. Brewer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played beyond training camp, sourcing is a bunch of yearbooks, obits that aren't even his, and unlinked local newspaper articles. GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment going to take some time to leaf through the potential online and offline sources for this one--hard to imagine that a primary target for Terry Bradshaw in college didn't generate enough press to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a search but couldn't really find much. The author of this article, the User:Billy Hathorn, was known for inflating notability of his article subjects and then used literally whatever sources he could find, mostly obituaries, primary sources like government records, or original research back up his claim of notability. While Brewer was a target of Bradshaw's, he was what about the equivalent of about an All-Sunbelt tight end who was on a training camp roster. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident you've made a good-faith nomination. Based on the article itself, it doesn't look good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is at least one instance of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete simply doesn't clear the WP:NGRIDIRON hurdle. Worth noting as well is that the article lacks sources. It has a yearbook, a newspaper article, and two more links. I have no opposition if this is kept but he doesn't feel notable enough to have his own article. James-the-Charizard (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have substantive sources to pass GNG or SNG. Reywas92^Talk 06:02, 30 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 James O'Brien (filmmaker)#Wish You Were Here & Hyperfutura. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wish You Were Here (2013 film)[edit]

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

Undersourced and fails WP:NFILM and DGG told there may be printed material. It needs a proper search. If not, it's a necessary redirect. Sheldybett (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Redirect to James O'Brien (filmmaker)#Wish You Were Here & Hyperfutura as WP:ATD. There was no need to raise a PROD or bring this to AfD at all. The one and only reference in the article comes from a blog making it unreliable, and there is nothing I can find in my searches. So it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NF for lack of any significant coverage, awards or reviews from reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:15, 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. Tone 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Muhammad Khanbahadur[edit]

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

Only source is an index page, his name in the title of the article doesn't match his name in the article, and see WP:ANI#Repeated addition of unsourced content and creation of unsourced pages Doug Weller talk 12:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons - mismatched name, one source being an index page, although this one also uses an unreliable source, royalark.net[1]:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither of the sources actually mention the subjects.[2][3] I think it's just an example of fictitious references. Alivardi (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We discourage purely genealogical articles. Being a leading in the Indian Mutiny might constitute notability, but the bare mention of this (without details of what he did) will not do. I would reconsider my vote if the article were altered to say what he did (with RS). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 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. Tone 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seang Chanthea[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another poorly sourced article which searches show doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:34, 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. Tone 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chea Vansak[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems he was on the Cambodian national squad for AFF 2018 (a backup goalkeeper), but sat on the bench.[4][5][6]. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this is U-23, and we would need the national team.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the national team AFAICT, not U-23. He didn't play though.Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 – Subject's league isn't fully professional per WP:FPL. The only reference is Soccerway; there are no references suggesting significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources (no WP:42). There is no credible claim in this article of significance or importance, or anything that would approach meeting notability under WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. The article should be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Leviv ich 04:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Speedy deletion completely inappropriate @Levivich:. Giant Snowman 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, why? Leviv ich 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: - "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." Giant Snowman 18:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GS. (Why do you make me pull teeth, though? You just quoted back to me the same language I had in my initial comment–what's the point of your spending time to do that?) My question is: what "credible claim of significance or importance" does this article make? All it claims is he's a football player in a non-professional league. Why does, or should, this count as "significance" or "importance"? Leviv ich 18:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because playing football can be a credible claim of significance/importance. A7 is used for really basic things like "X is a man" not "Y is a footballer playing in the top league in his country". Giant Snowman 20:47, 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hul Kimhuy[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Hul has played for the Cambodian national football team in a tier-one international football match. (1). Therefore he meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:18, 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. Tone 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saveng Samnang[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY - I could not find in dept sources in the 97 hits on google. As such there are insufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. Plays in the Cambodian League, which according to WP:FPL is not a fully professional league. Has not played in a competitive senior international match. As such he does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sincerely, Taketa (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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Chansopheak[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ken has played for the Cambodian national football team in a tier-one international football match. (1). Therefore he meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:19, 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 Now I see that this qualifies for speedy as a recreation of previously delete article. I did not notice this previously. Speedy deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ouk Sovann[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chhong Bunnath[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Chhong has played for the Cambodian national football team in a tier-one international football match. (1). Therefore he meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:19, 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. Tone 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chea Vesley[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – obvious NFOOTY fail, doesn't meet GNG, no references in the article, no sources to be found. Articles like this should be A7. Players who haven't yet played a game in a non-professional league (even if it's the top league in their country) shouldn't be considered "significant" or "important" for A7 purposes. Leviv ich 03:48, 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 keep. I've verified that User:A.Jacobin and User:AndersZorn are both subject to WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 due to having too few edits. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bassel al-Araj[edit]

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

Beyond the rather serious POV issues (e.g "Israeli occupation forces"), this activist is simply not notable. Prior to his death, his social media posts and protesting did not generate SIGCOV. His death, in a shootout with IDF, did generate coverage but of a WP:BIO1E nature and mainly around the event itself. We generally do not maintain bio pages for casualties/martyrs -WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (per Al Jazeera source) Fails WP:SIGCOV. Sourcing to partisan websites like /samidoun.net does not add to notability. There was a brief, minor flurry of coverage limited to the Israel/Palestinian region at the time of the shootout between this armed activist and security forces attempting to arrest him. Post 2017 sources limited to a memorial article in Electronic Intifada, deprecated by noticeboard consensus as "generally unreliable." But WP:NOTMEMORIAL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Og this is rich, E.M.Gregory: seeing all those total unknown Israelis you have started WP:MEMORIAL articles on, when they were killed? Your double standards reaches new record height all the time: congratulations. Huldra (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Unlike all those totally unknown Israelis that, say E.M.Gregory and others have started WP:MEMORIAL articles about, Bassel al-Araj was a fairly well known name, at least on the West Bank, before he was killed. (BTW, if this article is deleted, I will AfD dozens and dozens of those WP:MEMORIALs, because then we have a completely new standard here). There are articles about Bassel al-Araj in Jadaliyya, al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Times of Israel; you name it. Huldra (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a known name in RSes. Social media is... Social media. WP:OSE on other possible NOTMEMORIAL articles is not a valid AfD rationale.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in RS that he was a well known name on the West Bank. And that is a valid rationale against AfD, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat known social media activist - does not confer notability (nor pre-death coverage in RSes of any note).Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RS disagree, Huldra (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, you may want to reread WP:SOURCES and WP:GNG. I can always be persuaded to reconsider an iVote if someone brings reliable, SECONDARY WP:SOURCES that meet WP:GNG. But coverage has to be SUSTAINED, not, as here, a brief news cycle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable person or event.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)User disallowed from commenting here per WP:ARBPIA3[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search of LexisNexis for al-Araj's name in Arabic script produces a fourteen pieces of newspaper/news agency coverage of him through 2016 in his work as an activist and regarding his imprisonment and trial, alongside the extensive coverage after his death. My Arabic is very poor so I can't add this stuff into the article until I have much more time on my hands, but there material is there. Of course, if we did still conclude that al-Araj is not notable as a person, the article could simply be renamed something like 'Death of Bassel al-Araj' and its notability assessed on that basis. Alarichall (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you email me the text of those articles I can take a look. nableezy - 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That'd be great. Email me at [email protected] and then I'll know your edress and can send you some material. Alarichall (talk) 23:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done. nableezy - 01:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage of his death (beyond the cycle around the death itself) precludes notability of a "death of" article. Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This armed fighter, apparently a pharmacist in his day job, left a suicide note and was killed in a 2-hour gun battle with Israeli authorities. He was an obscure figure before his death, his death was the routine death of individuals who take up arms against a legitimate government, and he has remained obscure in the years since his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersZorn (talk • contribs) 13:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC) User disallowed from commenting here by WP:ARBPIA3[reply]
Keep - per this Al-Jazeera article 2 years later devoted entirely to al-Araj and his impact, demonstrating sustained in-depth coverage. nableezy - 00:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've just emailed User:Nableezy a large collection of Arabic newspaper articles mentioning al-Araj -- including some from before his death. This would definitely improve the source base for this article, and should help establish his notability or non-notability. I'd like to suggest that people hold off deciding about this until Nableezy has had a chance to look at this material and post here, therefore. Alarichall (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest closing editor roll this one over for a week to see whether the sources mentioned above constitute SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted o give opportunity for sources to be included.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate my keep from above. Along with the al-Jazeera article two years later entirely about him, there is coverage in November 2018 on his works being published posthumously. There was also contemporary coverage of his arrest in 2016 by the PA, the hunger strike he took, his release ordered by the Palestinian courts, and of Israeli raids on his familys home from 2016-2018 in the sources Alarichall emailed me. These sources span several years, they satisfy the requirement for in depth, sustained coverage. Ill add what I have time for to the article now, but the nomination rationale has been thoroughly debunked. nableezy - 16:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to !vote but I think Nableezy does present a quite clear case of notability here. BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are now no valid delete !votes, think this can be closed per WP:SNOW. nableezy - 16:42, 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teath Kimheng[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He has played for the Cambodian national football team in a tier-one international football match. (1). Therefore he meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:19, 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. Tone 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tes Sambath[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no GNG, no NFooty, non-notable football player. Leviv ich 01:12, 31 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--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kan Pisal[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Kan has played for the Cambodian national football team in a tier-one international football match. (1). Therefore he meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:20, 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Sophanat[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, the subject has never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Sin has played for the Cambodian national football team in a tier-one international football match. (1). Therefore he meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Actually does pass WP:NFOOTY per above. I suggest nom withdraw this so we don't waste a week on this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 13:54, 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. Tone 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel Carrascosa[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. no indication that the subject has ever played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. No indication he passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't pass NFooty, can't find coverage to satisfy GNG. Leviv ich 00:37, 31 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--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Ramos[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. no indication that the subject has ever played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. No indication he passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ramos has played in both the Venezuelan Primera División and the Uruguayan Primera División (per 1) which are both fully-professional per WP:FPL. This means he clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about journeyman footballer who has played in the Uruguayan and Venezuelan fully-pro leagues which appears to be able to satisfy the GNG based on some searches of online Argentine sources. I attempted to flesh out the article a bit, but it needs more work. Jogurney (talk) 14:49, 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. Tone 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The South Indian[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Run-of-the-mill coverage. The business exists, but lacks "significant" coverage to make it notable. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A site:.dk search did not reveal sources that would make the article pass GNG. Sam Sailor 19:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a small restaurant chain whose best sources are a routine listing and a review of their menu items. I am not seeing evidence that this is more than a run-of-the-mill business and is worthy of encyclopaedic note. AllyD (talk) 08:19, 30 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. Tone 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Souleymane Coulibaly (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

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

The article is incredible mess since it mixes at least two football players but neither of them ever played in a fully professional league and has notability to be included to Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to have been created in such haste that it is impossible to know who the subject is actually supposed to be. There may be at least three footballers from at least two different countries combined here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7. A completely empty “international career” section? Oh wait... it’s because he obviously doesn’t have one. Trillfendi (talk) 17:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I simply can't find anything online to verify this footballer ever played in a fully-professional league or otherwise is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:57, 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. Tone 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neou Soksela[edit]

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

Technically unreferenced, but if the information in the article is correct the subject never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY, and I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of a series of articles by this editor, who simply puts a link to a Soccerway page, not having anything to do with the subject of the article. Apparently, does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:22, 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. Tone 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reiya Kinoshita[edit]

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

Technically unreferenced, but if the information in the article is correct the subject never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY, and I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of a series of articles by this editor, who simply puts a link to a Soccerway page, not having anything to do with the subject of the article. Apparently, does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Tropicanan (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:22, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cree-L Kofford[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC, as per WP:BEFORE searches. This source provides a bit of coverage, but it is mostly quotations and also falls short of being significant coverage. This source consists almost entirely of a quotation, making it primary in nature, which does not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete p b p 13:07, 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 no consensus. Technically one could also say "keep" as the case for it meeting NFOOTY appears to be reasonably widely shared. GNG is murkier as it doesn't seem there are enough substantial sources. On balance a "no consensus" case as there has been a tendency to prioritize GNG criteria over the subject-specific notability critieria, but not to the point where only GNG counts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Lloyd (footballer, born 1958)[edit]

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

Two sub appearances is pushing WP:NFOOTBALL to breaking point. Lloyd went on to play in Australia but not in a WP:FPL. He fails WP:GNG as well. Dougal18 (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, which I'm sure @Kosack and ChrisTheDude: can assist with given he played for their teams... GiantSnowman 13:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look in my Gills books tonight. BTW I wasn't notified as the article creator (although I have to say I was surprised when I checked the edit history to see that it was actually me that created it :-) ).... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added enough to make him look likely to pass GNG, and he passes NFOOTY anyway. He played top-flight football in Australia, not just state league, which the article didn't mention (still not fully pro, obviously). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY having played in a fully professional league and the recent additions made have fleshed this article out considerably. There appears to be enough coverage to meet WP:GNG as well in my opinion. Kosack (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Questions – The offline sources cited in the article cite to one page each. I don't have access to any of them. For anyone who does, are all of those significant coverage, or some, or none? Also, do those sources (or any) dispute that he played in only 2 games, both as a sub? Thanks. Leviv ich 00:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the newspaper sources covering his pre-Football League career, ref currently #3, "Lloyd snapped up by Cardiff" is SIGCOV, the other two are routine two-or-three sentences that say pretty much what they've been used to verify. The Harman book just gives his Worcester City stats. I can't see the Gillingham or Cardiff books, but typically such books give a profile of each player, sometimes brief, sometimes in considerable detail. Don't think there's any doubt that he played in the Football League once each for two different clubs, on both occasions as the substitute (you only got one sub in those days); the article says he also played in the FA Cup for Gillingham. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - His profile in the Gills book is about a third of a page.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Thanks to Struway and Chris for answering my questions. From what I can gather, this article has 3 NFooty games (2 subs and 1 cup), plus 1 SIGCOV, not enough to meet GNG, so a barely scrapes by NFooty + no GNG = delete for me. Leviv ich 22:02, 31 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 Orangeburg massacre#Deaths. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hammond Jr.[edit]

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

Should be a redirect to the massacre, where it is covered in more detail. No notability outside the massacre. Perfect example of WP:BIO1E. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Civil Rights Movement-related deletion discussions. Mitchumch (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Orangeburg massacre per BIO1E. Biography with trivial biographical depth outside the event. An independent search for reliably sourced coverage provides only the rudimentary information. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Orangeburg massacre. BIO1E. Search results all connected to the massacre and article doesn't contain much that isn't in the massacre already.Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Draft space: Onel5969 Gene93k Icewhiz The scope of this article is identical to all four articles of murdered students Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, Allison Krause, and William Knox Schroeder known for the famous Kent State shootings in 1970. All four of those articles are notable for one event. None of those four articles have any record of being proposed for deletion. What is the difference between the Samuel Hammond Jr. article and those four student articles? Mitchumch (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is a poor argument - and some of those victims may merit deletion as well (though on some of them, it is a harder call). The question is whether the victim has received SIGCOV divorced from the event. For our subject here, our article merely repeats the massacre article, possibly adding: "Hammond grew up with two sisters, Zenobbie Clark and Diana Carter. They called him the affectionate nickname, "Bubba." At the age of 18, Hammond began attending South Carolina State College." and "After receiving the news, his mother was so upset she had to be sedated.". With such additional content there is little merit for a spinoff from the massacre and it does not seem we are anywhere beyond WP:BIO1E. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles show the same problems. Whether there is significant coverage about the persons as individuals to salvage the articles is a matter for another discussion. The Allison Krause article is a marginally better state. As for Samuel Hammond, nobody has found significant reliably sourced biographical coverage yet. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a stub, not a start-class article. Transfer the article to the creator's sandbox so it can be built up. Mitchumch (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting as proposed will not lose any content. Any editor can restore an article from redirect if and when non-trivial RS coverage for the person can be demonstrated. Moving to draft sets a 6-month clock for the draft to be improved or face a G13 speedy. The biographical content independent of the event is trivial. Keeping a draft with an unsubstantiated hope of improvement accomplishes little. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring the content to the creator's sandbox is an option. Doing so harms no one and nothing. Mitchumch (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is stopping you (or the creator) from doing that now, I will also note that if this closes as a redirect then the contents will be available in the prsenet article's history (on delete - it is gone. Redirect keeps the version history).Icewhiz (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely isn't an option. Not even close to passing the WP:GNG, outside of the WP:BIO1E threshold. Not adverse to a redirect, which it should be, except an editor decided to waste a lot of time by reverting the redirect with no explanation, hence creating an AfD discussion on a clear case of WP:BIO1E. And has been pointed out above the WP:OSE argument in this case is incredibly weak. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Gene93k Icewhiz I want to transfer the article to my sandbox to retain all existing attribution of edits and any future attribution of edits. Please do not assume I will be the only editor writing on this article. I will need to transfer this page to User:Mitchumch/sandbox1. Even if this article does not go to article space, there is no harm in transferring it to my sandbox. Mitchumch (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See - [7] - I attributed the two authors who actually added content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask you to do that nor did I give you permission to add that to my sandbox. Please have an administrator remove it. Mitchumch (talk) 14:34, 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. Tone 20:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo De Feo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject that continues to not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources consists of minor quotations from the subject, short passing mentions and name checks. The article is reliant upon primary sources, which do not qualify notability.

The Mormons in the Piazza: History of The Latter-day Saints in Italy source in the article, which lists page 505, is not able to be previewed. Regardless, even if the entire page is only about the subject, that's still only one source. Multiple sources that provide significant coverage are required to establish notability, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I am worn out by this constant nominating of articles I have spent so much time and energy on developing. I really expected to see more coverage of Feo, with the dedication of the Rome Italy Temple and with him being in the delegation lead by President Nelson that met with Pope Francis. However all we seem to have gotten is a captioned photo. So I just give up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. --151.54.243.13 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions rely on the view that all verifiable schools are notable; the community has rejected this view. Sandstein 09:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bajpara High School[edit]

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

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

contested csd, was moved to Draft:Bajpara High School already, but an ip restarted the article with no content. So, since there is no English reliable source for this school (i am unable to search and understand the google result in Bangladesh native languages BTW) , the article should be deleted under WP:GNG and school notability guideline . Matthew hk (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More information regarding this page can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Shakil9600. I had originally moved a version of this article to the draftspace as described by the nominator, but its original creator had been aggressive with the content attempting to get the page deleted. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage to mention. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because sources aren't in English doesn't mean they can be discounted. That said, someone who can read the language should assess the sources, see if there's anything there that's useful. (And automated translation won't help; East and South Asian languages commonly return barely-comprehensible English.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano:, well i believed আফতাবুজ্জামান seem a native speaker of Bengali and did the google search for me. Matthew hk (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew hk: My criticism was of your rationale: [...]since there is no English reliable source for this school[...]. Not having English sources is in and of itself not disqualifying; in fact most articles on topics in non-Anglophone areas aren't going to be in English, and this includes the Subcontinent and surrounding areas. If they weren't able to find any useful sources, then obviously I will defer to their judgment (and abstain from !voting as I can't read it either). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is less than 50 google results by the name shown in the article "বেজপাড়া উচ্চ বিদ্যালয়", i don't want to use the notorious Google Translate which is bad to translate non-Western languages, but by number and their domain, none of them seem significant coverage. Also, no source (no citation in the current wiki article) is a valid reason in Afd to userfiy the article, but may be not suitable as the article creator just ignore the fact that the article was moved to draft. (It was history merged after the start of Afd BTW) Matthew hk (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the user who understands the language. Legacypac (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a sidenote, the article creator was so new that his contest of speedy and afd were left in everywhere (it was right in article talk for speedy but wrong in user talk for Afd and speedy). Since the user was blocked for 48h for things related to this article, I quote his reason here which was posted on 19:35, 17 March 2019:

This [sic] page should not be speedily [sic] deleted because... (It is an important page for Manikganj District people)

--Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not being notable enough. A Dolphin (squeek?) 15:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've been able to find its official listing at the Dhaka Education Board (they render it "Baj Para") and a couple of directory listings; the official registry number is important for these schools. I've also tidied the article, including converting it to the school infobox from the one for settlements. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Existence does not grant notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's guaranteed, but "Most ... high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists" suggests that the listings (one of them from the relevant state board) make it keepable. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Key word is "historically". The RfC on this exact topic two years ago rejects this rationale. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, as it is an accurate statement of the results but promotes circular reasoning. (my emphasis) Matthew hk (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 22:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, it was a direct quote from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES , should I add [sic] to the word "should be added"?. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the information in the article has been verified in reliable sources and the article suitably updated. The RFC on School Outcomes was a controversial, forced consensus which has effectively been rejected at AFD time and again, you can't force experienced editors to bow to an unacceptable instruction creep, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super vote is an instruction creep too, which this "article" was contained a list of teachers (and was deleted by me), which the rest of the content simply qualify as WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Matthew hk (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First excuse my english. There are couples of mentioning in government site about this school.[8] apart of this, i didn't found anything else (eg news about this school, any notable student etc). I think we should not create an article about school, just because it exist. otherwise there are thousand of high school name can found here and you can start creating articles. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and Amar School.com are trivial coverage. Sohopathi contains slightly more information, but all three are indiscriminate directories that attempt to list every school in Bangladesh. They fail WP:ORGDEPTH and so do not demonstrate notability.

Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali-script name, found more directory mirrors, but nothing deep and independent. There is what purports to be a school webpage, but it contains a mix of "Lorem ipsum" text and information about a different school in the district. Whatever one feels about WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or the related RFC, this high school fails WP:NHSCHOOL.

It, like three quarters of the 20 high schools in the upazila, is so run-of-the-mill that it isn't worth redirecting to Shivalaya Upazila and itemizing there. If we knew which union parishad (the next smaller administrative division) the school is in, I could support redirecting to an article about that union. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there doesn't appear to be significant coverage in English or Bengali, as noted above. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:37, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Moldovan Philatelic Society (IMPS)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most references are to the organization’s own website or search engine results (which are not sources). In-depth coverage in independent sources is glaringly lacking. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. There's practically on GNEWS to confirm notability in anyway. Lapablo (talk) 07:58, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pheu Chart Thai Party[edit]

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

Party does not exist. Despite the reporting on Ampapan Thanetdejsunthorn's intentions, she has not registered the party, and having an article that assumes it exists violates WP:CRYSTAL. Any coverage that I could find is either more about Ampapan Thanetdejsunthorn herself (who is notable enough for an article), or passing mention among wider political coverage. Paul_012 (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that probably makes sense.--Varavour (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:01, 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 redirect to While You Were Sleeping (film). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel G. Sullivan[edit]

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

A screenwriter with just one credit. While his film is notable, he is not. Either delete or a redirect to While You Were Sleeping (film). (Odd it says he still is screenwriting when he has no other credits) Wgolf (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it says that he is still screenwriting, that could mean that he is writing screenplays that haven't been produced, and/or doing rewrites of other people's screenplays for which he gets payment but not credit. I don't have a comment as to his notability yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to to While You Were Sleeping (film).. Los Angeles Times: 'Sleeping' Makes Dream Come True : Movies: After 12 years of drudgery, screenwriters Fredric Lebow and Daniel G. Sullivan strike it rich with 'While You Were Sleeping.' Now they're a hot property.. That's about all I can find. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 03:46, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: I couldn't find anything to hang notability on either. Ravenswing 07:21, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Saloon Wet with Beautiful Women[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is unselective databases or not about the film in question. "Best Film at the Pink Grand Prix" is not a significant award as it's based on a fan poll. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. A search brings out no reliable sources, at this point fails WP:NFILM. Lapablo (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 03:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting that the Pink Grand Prix award is fan-based, yes, but it is still considered a major award by the pink film community, if not the Big Primo award. I am hesitant to recommend deleting this page until someone can do a proper search of Japanese-language magazines and media websites. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: being a recipient of niche, fan-based awards does not meet WP:NFILM. In the absence of significant coverage, the page also fails WP:GNG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:21, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those firmly rooted in knowledge[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I could not find reliable sources discussing this concept in detail. Google searches will give lots of hits, because this phrase occurs in the Quran, but I could not find substantive discussion that makes this concept more notable than any other phrase from the Quran. Cerebellum (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a commonly used phrase, but I'm not aware of any sources discussing in detail. Eperoton (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you looked ~~and~~ at the books and scholar links above you would become aware of such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did scroll through a couple of pages of book results, seeing some clarifications on what the phrase refers to in a particular context, but no comprehensive discussions. If you are aware of RSs on which to base the article, you're certainly welcome to improve it. Eperoton (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like the best solution all around is to merge and redirect this to an article more broadly collecting such concepts in Islam. bd2412 T 23:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fasouri Watermania[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable private business Karpouzi (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The waterpark has received coverage and been recommended by publications including The Guardian, SigmaLive, Daily Mail, Phile News, and several other foreign language sources. The waterpark was also awarded the title of "Europe's Leading Waterpark Attraction" by World Travel Awards in 2007. ~~I believe that more foreign language sources may establish notability, but my opinion is leaning towards delete at this time~~. MarkZusab (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't seem like an inappropriate advert at all to me, and seems obviously notable. The deletion nomination just asserts it is "non-notable" without explanation, without any mention of wp:BEFORE being performed, so I doubt that wp:BEFORE was performed. Keep also per the "Comment" above which is "leaning towards delete", because it states that it has significant awards and seems likely to have foreign language sources establishing notability and that it has received coverage in multiple sources including the Guardian and more. (Surely that was a less-than-half-hearted "delete" vote). Also note that the article includes strong assertions of importance, "Fasouri Watermania in Limassol is Cyprus' biggest waterpark.[1] It has the biggest wave pool in Europe,[2]". --Doncram (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged as I deprodded many years ago. Keep, sources in the articles and above establish notability. Fences&Windows 13:19, 30 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Violence of Gender[edit]

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

a short exhibition which probably has no enduring historical significance, how can it be possible to create an article for a single museum exhibition like this, otherwise all museums should by far have a long lists of articles of their exhibitions and talks. 淺藍雪^❉ 19:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Some background on the article: It was created as part of the Asia Art Archive Women in Art Edit-a-thon in Hong Kong, in which new users are asked to write about female artists and art-related articles. A participant, who was a brand new user, wished to create an article on the exhibit. I decided she could do it after she found one local news article (in Chinese) from The Stand News [zh] (立場新聞) and one from the South China Morning Post (SCMP), which would satisfy WP:GNG. As a volunteer at the event I'm aware several articles on other art exhibitions had been created as part of these events. I am interested in knowing whether there is notability criteria specific to art exhibitions (other than GNG), but if not I would use GNG as the guidepost.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question I found Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contemporary_Art/Notability#Notability_of_events. I'll quote it from here:

"

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.
Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.
An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted."

Since Hong Kong is an SAR, it is de facto treated as a small country for the purposes of "national" reporting, so I would count the SCMP as "national" in this regard. The issue is whether this event will exceed the "news cycle" factor.

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not temporary", and nothing could convince me that this is not a temporary event, and I really doubt a report from the SCMP would make it non-temporary and different from other normal museum events. It may have notability, but a very short one. I would say it is better to wait for some experts on articles about events to judge.--淺藍雪^❉ 19:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that the SCMP article is a review by Rachel Cheung (SCMP culture reporter) that goes in detail about the exhibit's themes and the reviewer's opinion of the works, not merely a news announcement that the exhibit's happening. A review of the exhibit would make the case of notability much stronger. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not think a review is enough to make the event non-temporary, and "the SCMP is a national media" does not make sense to me either.--淺藍雪^❉ 20:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "the SCMP is a national media" - The SCMP is treated as a newspaper of record of Hong Kong (essentially one of the most important newspapers). Secondly, while Hong Kong is under Chinese sovereignty, it maintains its own borders and customs, autonomous government, currency, etc., and therefore is treated similarly to a small country. This makes the SCMP a "national" publication of Hong Kong. The guidelines on events say "national" coverage has more weight than strictly "local". WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I interpret WP:NTEMP as saying that once notability is established, it is permanent. The temporary nature of the subject is irrelevant: The Armory Show is notable, even though it only lasted 26 days. In retrospect that exhibit was very significant. But we're not here to decide if The Violence of Gender is historically significant (it's too early to tell) but if there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article. Vexations (talk)

There are two independent published sources that make commentary on the subject: SCMP review and The Stand News (in Chinese) - you can google translate to see what this one says, roughly WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three, I think. I added a review by Katherine Volk. Vexations (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The publisher is CoBo Social International Co., Limited and the author of the review is a freelance journalist. I think I can say Keep for this article. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are not adequate to establish notability over time. The Armory show, mentioned above, is notable because it has occurred over time and been very widely reviewed. This is a single exhibition with three reviews. If we say that's enough, then we could apply the same criteria to tens of thousands of shows a year. Additionally the only thing the article tells me is that it happened ona certain date, a list of artists participated, and then it goes on to paraphrase the SCMP. We aren't a directory of things that happened, nor are we a news source. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notability standard for books, for example, is at least two independent secondary sources giving commentary on the subject. The SCMP gives an analysis and commentary, and articles are supposed to paraphrase that. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not persuaded that short exhibitions are inherently non-notable. WP:NEVENTS seems to suggest the topic might or might not be notable but, since this guideline claims to be interpreting pre-existing guidelines I'll refer to WP:N where the guidance indicates the topic may be presumed to merit an article. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found some other reviews too - 'Society’s veiled gender violence laid bare in Hong Kong exhibition' in The Art Newspaper [9] (published yesterday), and 'It runs deeper than #MeToo' in China Daily [10]. As the exhibition has another month to run, there will probably be more reviews (including in arts journals which have a longer publishing timeline), but we already have 5. The article could be expanded with more discussion from these reviews. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Suvarna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Few sources exist, and none of them are about reviews of "Star Suvarna". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BROADCAST. Have you searched for sources in the station's language? Any TV channel in India is going to have millions of viewers. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:BROADCAST does speak of presumption of notability in case of TV channels that produce original programming, it does not, in and of itself, establish notability for a media outlet such as this one going by the absence of multiple independent and secondary reliable sources thereby not passing the muster at WP:GNG. Delete — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:39, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BROADCAST "Cable television - Generally, national or regional cable channels are presumed notable." For example, one source said it was 4th overall viewership impressions in India for a week in 2016. There are more sources on the channel. StrayBolt (talk) 15:16, 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 redirect to Camera phone. Sandstein 09:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPhoneography[edit]

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

This is a neologism for pictures taken with a camera phone, and there is already an article for camera phone. Articles on iPhones already cover the imaging capabilities of these devices. Reliable sources certainly talk broadly about technology's impact on the practice of photography, but the term "iPhoneography" is definitely not used in the major photography references. (WP:CFORK, WP:NEO, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOT#DICT) Qono (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camera phone. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camera phone. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camera phone. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - (edit conflict)~~and merge Camera phone.~~ The term "iPhoneography" is ubiquitous, as is iPhoneographer as seen in this online publication, and ~~it has~~ there is a notable history that can be connected [11], [12] that perhaps should be included as it adds to its encyclopedic value - ^{to clarify...}perhaps not necessary to go that far back (phonegraphy-stenography-all the way to video depositions to iPhoneography). Adding: We have Photography, Camera and various articles about types/makes of cameras. iPhotography is the start of something similar as it is/should be about the art, application and creation of photographs for the internet and all it has to offer, building from the links I included regarding the history.16:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)^Atsme 👩‍💻 📧 13:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure iphonelife.com is a reliable source or that their usage qualifies "iPhoneography" as a notable topic. Your two other sources are from the 19th century and are using the phrase "phonegraphy", which apparently refers "the writing of sounds", not the practice of taking pictures with an iPhone, which is what this article is about. Qono (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) with my additions/strikes that I included in my statement - hopefully it addresses the points you made at the same time. ^Atsme 👩‍💻 📧 16:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – iPhoneography has nothing worth salvaging from it. It ranges across a number of topics, the vast majority of it inconsequential including WP:NOTAMANUAL, largely unsourced. It does not make a case for the existence of iPhoneography, nor indeed phoneography, as a thing. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added several RS to the article including NYTimes, National Geographic, WaPo, PetaPixel, 9to5Mac, etc. I've changed my iVote to speedy. I would not oppose moving it to Phoneography & reversing the redirect, and not make it specific to iPhone.^{18:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)} This article can be expanded, become a DYK nom, and a GA without a great deal of difficulty. Other articles can be wikilinked to it and/or created as a result. I do wish more time was invested in locating RS before bringing articles to AfD. ^Atsme 👩‍💻 📧 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Word. Alarichall (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to camera phone. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This subject straightforwardly meets the WP:GNG criterion 'topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. To show this, I've created IPhoneography#Further_reading, listing nine academic publications/theses on this subject -- and a quick scholar.google.com search shows that there are lots more I could have listed. Certainly this article could be a lot better, but its notability is clear. (Just to respond to some of the comments above, surely merging iPhoneography to Camera phone would be rather like merging Photography to Camera? Likewise, Wikipedia has a rich array of articles on different kinds of photography, listed at Category:Photography by genre. iPhoneography is potentially a great contribution to these.) Alarichall (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the iPhone represents an important milestone in the history of phone-based photography. As is evident by the many sources for the article title, and the excellent books found by Alarichall, this page, while fringe-ish, can stand on its own.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If "iPhoneography" were an important topic in its own right then where is the coverage, compared with that for using smartphones in general? How many of the cited sources use the term "iPhoneography"? OF those that are independent reliable sources, zero. The only ones that do are www.iphoneography.com, www.artofiphoneography.com, a book by Apress called iPhoneography, and 9to5Mac quotes a single word tweet from someone at Apple using the word. This is not persuasive evidence. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see five or six books with iPhoneography in their title. Books aren't reliable sources anymore? What about Wired magazine? Forbes? The National Film Board of Canada? Petapixel? The New Media and Society Journal? The Seattle Times? I agree it's a cheesy subject, but it does have coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As I said, I was refering to the "cited sources". -Lopifalko (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased that you are persuaded by the sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If these sources prove the existence of iPhoneography, where does that leave us with regard having an article on photography with a particular manufacturer's device (which to me is too specific, a term in need of fixing), compared with photography on smartphones in general (phoneography)? -Lopifalko (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you imply, the term iPhoneography is rather modish -- though it may yet become the dominant term, the way that 'biro' has become the dominant term for 'ballpoint pen' (at least in British English). We could change the title to 'Smart phone photography' or something? Alarichall (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will become the dominant term. I think the most recent source we have, either from those in the article or those provided here by ThatMontrealIP, is from 2015. I think this thing has run its course already. -Lopifalko (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lopifalko in that the discussion has run its course. As a reviewer at WP:NPP (not that it means anything) I'm of the mind that the topic easily passes GNG. I thought about moving it to a more generic title as Phoneography which would be all inclusive, and not proprietary to a specific brand. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: by "this thing has run its course", by I meant "thing" being some peoples' trying to get some traction for a term called "iPhoneography" going, which appears to have run its course by 2015. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Camera phone. - - FlightTime (open channel) 14:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reverted out-of-policy WP:NAC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTBURO is policy; but feel free to waste everyon's time, there's plenty of it going round. ——SerialNumber54129 17:54, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's quite obvious the topic is notable and well sourced. I had no objection to SerialNumber's close. A camera phone and iPhoneography are two different topics, the same way photography and camera are two different topics, so a redirect should not even be a consideration. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If the term is used in connection with a single brand, it might have a place in Wikitionary, but there is otherwise nothing specific aboutthe topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the article and sources explain, the term is not only used in connection with a single brand, but with smartphones generally. Alarichall (talk) 07:54, 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 Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferey Carp[edit]

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

Also nominating the following related page because it is a content fork of the above:

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

Played on notable albums/songs, but seems to lack the kind of sourcing to support meeting any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria nor can I find reliable enough sourcing for GNG. No obvious redirect target though perhaps one can be found? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made a bunch of improvements, please double check. I believe it now fits the criteria to keep BluesmanRobert38 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BluesmanRobert38 someone did improve the quality of the references but it doesn't change my thinking because there is no new reference included. I'm guessing that you think it should be kept? If so you should probably say it. The way to normally do that is to go
* '''Keep''' <reason why you think it should be kept>
If you don't say anything it could get deleted by default since no one has commented.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since he died in 1973, there is not going to be much references. I think we should make an exception as he seems to be a notable figure of his time. Peter303x (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240505124404[reply]
Keep. The page has been improved to the point there is enough sources. It was nominated for deletion within 24 hours of posting before I got around to adding sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BluesmanRobert38 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added the article Jeffrey Carp to this nomination. "Jeffrey" seems to be the correct spelling, but that article is a copy-paste by User:Karl Twist of The 2019-03-19 09:20:43 version of the article Jefferey Carp started by User:BluesmanRobert38. It's then been edited further by Karl Twist and others with longer text and more sources, but without the AfD notice and without the required attribution. It's going to require a history merge, I think. @Karl Twist: Why did you copy-paste this article from one name to the other? It appears to be Wikipedia:Content forking. --Closeapple (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Closeapple. I haven't forked anything. Well, not intentionally. Due to the spelling of his name being wrong, I wasn't going to work on the article and fix it better when that wasn't the correct spelling of his name. I credited BluesmanRobert38 as the originator. Yes, it is spelt that way occasionally but his name is correctly spelt as Jeffrey. That way people can see the spelling and search correctly. I was going to redirect it to the new page. I wanted to redirect the AFD as well but couldn't work out how to do that and thought best leave it alone. Anyway the article here has been redirected. Karl Twist (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion of the sources; can someone please present WP:THREE sources that show significant coverage of the subject?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that he's older and so there might be offline sources. So far no one has suggested what those sources might be. And every source we have so far is a 1 sentence mention of him. That's it. He played Harmonica. For a lot of good bands and popular albums. Absent someone taking note of him we should not create a biography where reliable sources - not even specialized ones like the Harmonica Encyclopedia with its 1 sentence entry) have not. In this case we literally have 18 sources of 1 sentence each. If we had 1 source of 18 sentences I'd have never even thought of nominating it for deletion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ – I really want this to be notable, but after a lot of searching various sources I cannot find anything that meets our standards for inclusion. There are plenty of one-line mentions, a few even in reliable sources, but nothing that provides the sort of in-depth coverage we need to write a half-decent article. Bradv🍁 04:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep based on the sources and analysis by RebeccaGreen. This is the kind of coverage I was trying to find – while it's not in-depth, it also is not trivial, and there is enough of it to satisfy BASIC. Thank you. Bradv🍁 13:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. subject is notable - article will be developed further. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lubbad85 What is the significant coverage you're seeing that meets the definition of GNG (bullet point 1)? I ask not to badger you but because I would like to think he is notable. From what I've seen coverage is all nearly parallel to the Three Blind Mice example. Am I missing a source? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We now seem to have "Jefferey Carp" redirected to "Jeffrey Carp", which at least means we're only looking at one page. I have found several articles about the recordings he was part of. One from 2003 in the Edmonton Journal, about The London Howlin' Wolf Sessions, says "the late Jeffrey Carp provided fireballs of musical punctuation via his blistering shots on harmonica." [13] A 1976 article in the San Francisco Examiner about producer Norman Dayron says "Dayron called harmonica player Jeff Carp "the most important talent I've worked with." Carp drowned in a boating accident at age 19 before Dayron could complete his first album for Capital Records, but Dayron did use the young harp blower on a number of sessions including the "Fathers and Sons" LP and Chuck Berry's "Tulane"." [14] (The latter does not seem to be in the article yet.) There's also a short review in 1970 of The Soulful Strings which mentions "some fine work on harmonica by Jeff Carp" [15]. A review of a live performance by Earl Hooker in the San Francisco Examiner in 1969 (different reviewer from the 1976 article) says "Mouth harpist Jeff Carp out of the Sam Lay Band of Chicago, is magnificent - for my money better than Paul Butterfield (more musical, more inventive)" [16]. There are other, longer reviews, of Muddy Waters' "Fathers and Sons" which just mentions "Jeff Carp on chromatic harp" [17], and of Earl Hooker "Don't Have to Worry" which has "Jeff Carp, mouthharp" [18] - at least useful for verifying those appearances.

Of the sources in the article already, it seems to me that the most reliable are: the Rolling Stone review of Fathers and Sons which includes "By the way, while we’re talking about harmonica playing, there’s superlative chromatic work by Jeff Carp (formerly with Sam Lay, lately working with Earl Hooker) all the way through “All Aboard,” acting as a sort of continue to Muddy’s singing and Paul’s rhythmic interjections, on regular harmonica, on the other channel. But on this track it’s Jeff’s show, and he does a hell of a job." Also the book Earl Hooker, Blues Master which writes about Carp on pages 269-271 and 280 (and gives his middle initial); and the book Moanin' at Midnight: The Life and Times of Howlin' Wolf which writes about Carp on 5 pages, of which we only see 3 snippets online, one of which calls him "Chicago harp wizard Jeffrey Carp".

I would say that the sources I have found, and these 3 sources in the article, meet the WP:BASIC criterion "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". These sources are definitely not trivial - it's clear that he was extremely talented, and those reviews can be included in the article, with the references supporting the information about the artists he played with and albums he appeared on. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RebeccaGreen for this analysis. Your combination does make a compelling BASIC argument and so I have struck my nomination and change to keep so that this may be closed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 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. Sandstein 08:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Home Instead Senior Care[edit]

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

I was going to PROD this, but discovered that it had been prodded once in 2009. It's very poorly sourced, and I haven't been able to locate a single independent secondary source in my own search. There are four footnotes in all; the second section offers no citations at all. In the first section, the sentence about the firm being "cited for its business success" names six publications but only gives (weak) citations for two of them, each with a single-sentence mention of the company. Note 3 is 404 not found, and note 4, which is offered as pertaining to Franchise Business Review, is actually a promotional text provided by the article subject, on a site suggestively named PR Newswire. Unless somebody can find some real sources, the company is surely not notable. Bishonen | talk 21:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was quite poor, but I don't think there can be much doubt that the organisation is notable, given the scale of its operations. I've found quite a lot of independent sources, but I'm afraid it looks even more promotional because I haven't found anything at all critical of the firm. Rathfelder (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject's notability is supported mostly by advertorials, brochures, and assorted puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Rathfelder: if you've got specific sources, you should list them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the citations are regarded as advertorials, brochures, and assorted puffery?Rathfelder (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. It will either be brought up to standards there, or abandoned and deleted. bd2412 T 03:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is in depth coverage in an independent source published in February.^[1] Bear in mind that this is a franchise operation, not a conventional organisation, and certainly in the UK it is a very significant player with plenty of coverage, though mostly in local newspapers.Rathfelder (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "THE BIG INTERVIEW: Martin Jones, Managing Director, Home Instead Senior Care". Home Care Insight. 22 February 2019. Retrieved 16 March 2019.

Sorry, but I don't think an interview with the managing director which him a free field for promotion is a very good source. Do you think it's in-depth and independent, really? Bishonen | talk 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Its a trade paper and so as independent as any trade paper. It is in a reasonable amount of depth for a trade paper. Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be coverage from a wide variety of sources in several countries. Bigwig7 (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very helpful comment without naming some of the sources. The only "source" you have added to the article is obviously user-generated. Does the "wide variety" include any independent secondary sources? Bishonen | talk 13:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC). PS, sorry, I see you added one more as I was typing this. Bishonen | talk 13:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

I count 18 independent secondary sources: Home Care Insight, Waterford Live, Franchise Times Corporation (perhaps - not very clear what that is), Time magazine, The Franchise magazine, Toronto.com, Kelowna Courier, Connaught Telegraph, Sunday Times, Healthcare Business, Teesside Live, Homecare.co.uk, Weston Mercury, Bucks Herald, Ipswich Star, Newark Advocate, Sandusky Register, Detroit Free Press. For a social care organisation that is a lot. Social care doesnt get much coverage, and this organisation seems to be a significant provider. There is also clearly some significant coverage by the Care Quality Commission which I haven't included in the article because I think it would make it look more like a brochure. Our coverage of social care is very weak. I think we need to keep this article. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the sources in the article such as TIME, Sunday Times, and Detroit Free Press seem promising. Can we have more eyes on this?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reasoning provided by Rathfelder is not the criteria used for sources for the purposes of establishing notability. As per WP:ORGIND, the definition of "independent" as applied to "independent secondary sources" means that the sources must contain independent content and excludes articles that rely almost entirely on interviews. Further, merely paraphrasing or repeating company-produced content is not enough as in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources provided meet these criteria for establishing notability, therefore topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant see anything in the policy which says that we cannot count sources which rely upon interviews. The article in Time has quite a lot of depth. So has the Sunday Times. Ratings by the Care Quality Commission, a statutory body, are completely independent and in considerable depth. Their inspections are precisely investigation, analysis and fact checking. Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rathfelder, section 2.6 of WP:NCORP lists "memoirs or interviews by executives" as an example of a "Primary sources" and cannot be used for the purposes of establishing notability. Also I've pointed out above the criteria for sources must include *original* and *independent* opinion/analysis/investigation/fact checking/etc from sources not affiliated with the subject. Further, while the Care Quality Commission is independent and provides independent analysis/fact checking/etc, the other fact is that they are the independent regulator of health and social care in England and its their job to produce reports on *all* health care providers and as such is not an indication of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The notability as far as CQC reports are concerned is not the existence of the reports. It's the categorisation as outstanding. Not at all commonplace. It appears to me that you are setting a standard of notability far above the vast majority of our articles about organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except the CQC reports do not meet the criteria for establishing notability since it is mandatory for the CQC to produce a report on each establishment. The subsequent categorisation is therefore of not consequence. Also, the guidelines containing the criteria for organisations is the same and each are held to the same standard - documented in WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - NB the question of notability is considered in relation to the existence of evidence. Not just what is in the article. Many of the references to the firm in the USA are not available to me because I am in the UK. Furthermore there is probably coverage in other languages in the other countries in which the firm operates.Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you explain why you say "the references to the firm in the USA are not available to me because I am in the UK"? I would have thought that Google would work just fine regardless? HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google isnt the problem. Some news websites give me messages like this: 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons. We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact [email protected] or call 304-348-5140.

Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The firm won The Queen's Award for Enterprise: Innovation (2016). I think that makes it quite notable. Furthermore its relationship with GrandPad is generating interest. Rathfelder (talk) 00:36, 31 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shalhevet High School[edit]

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

Non-notable institution with minimal reference material; of the five sources referenced on the page, one is not a link, one is a dead link to a primary source, and one IS a primary source. Citation and neutrality tags have been on the page for 3-5 years and no new material has been published to resolve this. Bartleby prefers not to (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's the subject, not the article, that is or isn't notable. I find it extremely difficult to believe sufficient sourcing to cross the relatively low bar we have for high schools isn't crossed here. That being said, the article is a train wreck. That can and will be fixed. John from Idegon (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regular mention in The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and others [19] [20] [21][22][23][24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Here's one from LA Times on one of the students [30] Times of Israel [31] Curbed Los Angeles [32] The Forward (contributor blog though) [33] Haaretz [34] Here's one from Robb Report about a teacher who stole stuff [35] Jewish Press [36] Here's one from Germany about an issue in the school: [37] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also there is a Midreshet Shalhevet High School in New York that would be hatnoted if it had an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:48, 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 speedy deleted (procedural closure). (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immirzakhan[edit]

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

Not supported by reliable sources. SS49 (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SS49 (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SS49 (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as the article does not contain a credible claim of significance. So tagged. Bradv🍁 04:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Abrams[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. Not regarded as an important figure. Not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Has not created any well-known/significant works (i.e. the works that have been created have not been the primary subject of an independent and notable work). None of his works are significant monuments, substantial parts of a significant exhibition, have won significant critical attention, or have been represented in permanent collections. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet notability requirements.Lubbad85 (talk) 00:24, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Reese[edit]

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

County-level Republican party chairman who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources used are: 1) search results from ancestry.com; 2) his obituary; 3) his entry in "Who's Who in American Politics", which has a much lower notability threshold than Wikipedia; 4) an unlinked "statement"; 5, 6 & 10) election returns; 7) proof that his brother-in-law served in the LA house of representatives; 8) dead link to a list of election officials; and 9) permanent dead link to his wife's dance school's website. GPL93 (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable from Who's Who in American Politics" bio and as party chairman in two parishes. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.54.229 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Note to administrators The above vote is most likely the work of banned editor Billy Hathorn. The IP editor has been blocked....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable local political official....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Laughable to consider party co-chairman in a small parish to pass NPOL, heck the state chairman of the California Republican Party was just deleted. None of the sources establish notability for minor local official and loser candidate. Reywas92^Talk 05:52, 30 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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Balazo[edit]

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

Comedian I can find little info for (yet another page that has been here for a long time) For years it was nothing but unsourced info, which I can't find any back up for. Wgolf (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2008 by an SPA IP. An SPA named MichaelBelazzo removed swaths of unsourced bio years ago. More to the point, he has a couple of minor writing credits on IMDB [38], this is not a WP:RS, but it is a useful way to check on potential notability, writing credits for a fee sitcom episodes ≠ notability. a gNews search [39] doesn't either. Looks like Delete, but if someone can make a solid, well-sourced argugment for notability, feel free to pig me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 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) 02:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no article Lubbad85 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no article because the subject of the article deleted most of it, and then an IP editor removed the rest of the content. One Google result shows "Canadian Screen Award for Best Writing in a Variety or Sketch Comedy Program or Series" attached to his name - I haven't really tried to verify that, as it seems that Wikipedia doesn't consider it a notable award category anyway (at least, it doesn't have a bluelink in the Canadian Screen Awards article). Searching on Michael Balazo's name, I can find a review and a short para about the Gentlemen Callers on Newspapers.com [40], [41], and an article in an ezine with one longish sentence about him, and some quotes from him [42]. While it might be possible to find more, these meagre results don't suggest a strong notability that would warrant an article whether the subject wants it or not. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he does have a Canadian Screen Award nomination for television writing, and thus would be eligible to have an article if it were properly sourced, clearing a notability criterion in theory does not constitute a free exemption from actually having to have any reliable source coverage about him. For one thing, he received the nomination as one member of a 14-person writing team, not as an individual in his own right — and for another, the problem with Canadian Screen Awards is that ever since the Genie-Gemini merger exploded the number of CSA categories into the hundreds, media don't publish the complete list of nominees anymore but just selectively report the most high-profile categories. So we have to rely on the Academy's own website to get a CSA article finished — but we still get blocked because the Academy has either discontinued or technically forked up (I'm not sure which) its historical database of past winners and nominees, so at the moment even the nomination itself can't actually be sourced anywhere but the show's own self-published press release tooting its own horn. (Which is why the category article's missing: it's not that it isn't a notable category in theory, it's that we can't find the proper sources in fact to actually build an article about it with.) And that's exactly why a CSA nomination, in one of the less important categories, is not an inclusion freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have any sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against a new article, well-sourced article in future should his career warrant it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information Technology Experts Alliance[edit]

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

PRODed in 2009 for being unsourced. Deprodded but still unsourced. No reliable independent sources found. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:02, 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) 02:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conga Bugs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing significant to find in my searches besides the Gamezebo review that is already in the article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:04, 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) 02:28, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsti Swanson[edit]

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

Actress with questionable notability. Her stage listings seem to be stuff like high school stage productions and not major ones. Wgolf (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well short of multiple notable roles and fails WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found to indicate notabilty. The current article seems to do a thorough job of documenting the minor roles the subject has had. At best TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wild Rings[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NVIDEOGAMES, as one source I think is only minor faq website which is not realible as the only source of this article. Sheldybett (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New sources were Edit into it. Dont know if its allowed by rules/laws to Upload the Cover or backart. --DJ Kaito (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per additions made to the article, as denoted by the comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tendaness[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Fails WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable musician and does meet at least one of the criteria for notable musicians and ensembles. I feel that this article can be kept on Wikipedia. It just needs updating and improvement. This musician is very well recognized where he is from in Eswatini and is one of the first public figures from the country to have success and coverage outside of his home country. He has been covered in some reliable published sources online as well. So this article can definitely be improved to include more reliable sources. Bonginkhosim —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 22:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If this article is deleted so should Tendaness (album). StaticVapor message me! 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A commenter above is correct that Tendaness has been noticed by the press in his home country eSwatini (FKA Swaziland) [43] and the hip hop press worldwide, but those notices are sparse. It might be too soon for an article but there might also be enough for a viable stub now. However, the current version of the article is severely padded with social media junk that should be removed, and more sources are needed on the awards at the bottom of the article (here's one: [44]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. The awards he won are not notable. It appears that the subject is an up-and-coming DJ. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Times of Swaziland, and Swazi Observer and has won/been nominated for a number of national awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 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 Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi. The consensus is not clear on any of the other items, so please nominate them individually. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi[edit]

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

I would like to nominate the article for deletion, because no notability. The man is the self declared vice chancellor of a unaccredited and degree mill institution name as Darul Huda Islamic University MalayaliWoman (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these also part of the degree mill:

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

Darul Huda is an non accredited (https://www.ugc.ac.in/stateuniversitylist.aspx?id=13&Unitype=2) and diploma mill institution based at Malappuram, Kerala, India.MalayaliWoman (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - "diploma mill" would need a source to back it up. The Hindu doesn't indicate that, and it's not on the official list of fake universities. Huon (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu's news seems the daily published what the release team Darul Huda provided. So, its a fake self-claim of Darul Huda that they are a university. In India, such a seminary oriented college cant be university using any international seminary bodies.
UGC might have prepared fake Universities List in India, according to the data they have given. This Darul Huda is not much a known nor considerable. So How UGS will find a local institution like this.MalayaliWoman (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MalayaliWoman: None of this is positive evidence for your assertions which have added to multiple of the nominated articles as well as this discussion, in violaton of WP:V and arguably WP:BLP. Huon (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: Welcome Sir, Can you explain what is the notability of these articles?MalayaliWoman (talk) 11:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't expressed an opinion on the notability of these articles and haven't evaluated that yet. Adding unsourced negative content to articles, however, is not appropriate even if the subject of the article indeed isn't notable. I'm going to revert the "diploma mill" part since you apparently cannot back up your claims. Huon (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Darul Huda Islamic University, redirect Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi and Thelitcham Monthly thereto, delete Darunnajath Islamic Complex and Malik Deenar Islamic Academy. Darul Huda has quite a bit of media coverage in national and international news. More coverage in non-English sources may well exist; I couldn't check those. Both Nadwi and the magazine are mentioned in the article on the university, with sources to back them up. Nadwi is something of a borderline case; there are plenty of passing mentions, and he seems involved in disputes among the local Muslim community, but at least in English there's no significant coverage of him. For the affiliated institutions I couldn't find any secondary sources at all, so the Darul Huda article cannot mention them and there would be no point to redirects. Huon (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support the above suggestions. Mr. @Huon:. In addition, I request to change the name of Darul Huda Islamic University to Darul Huda, because the suffix will make confusion for students at the season of admission. The institution not providing general education, and even Islamic education for women. MalayaliWoman (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr, @Huon: Can you explain what was meant by the sentence “Darul Huda was upgraded to a university” that added by you to the article, Darul Huda and Why was removed the word “non accredited” from the preface.MalayaliWoman (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk:Darul Huda Islamic University article's talk page is a better place for content discussions. I'll reply there. Huon (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agreed, Let's finish the process. MalayaliWoman (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleting the Bahauddeen Muhammed Nadwi and other articles related with the Darul Huda International University? I am a notable person in the Islamic World, and my Facebook page is verified (https://www.facebook.com/Dr.BahauddeenMuhammedNadwi/). Check my official profile at http://www.dhiu.in/vice-chancellor Bahauddeen Muhammed (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Doesn't touch WP:GNG. None of the article mentioned above do. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why deleting these pages?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahauddeen Muhammed (talk • contribs) 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bahauddeen Muhammed, people have tried to explain reasons for a deletion above. A simplified summary of our deletion guidelines can be found at WP:42. Some people would say that this is oversimplified, but the general message is very important. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though the conflict of interest edits have been justifiably reverted, the current version's identification as a 'diploma mill' and similar references to lack of accreditation are also problematic. Looks like WP:OR to make a point. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while DHIU doesn't seem to be a degree-awarding university, it appears to provide a high school education, including "secondary" and "senior secondary", according to their website. High schools are generally presumed to be notable. Given the amount of international news mentioning DHIU, I would expect local sources (in Malayalam) to also cover DHIU to a significant degree. Huon (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG delete all .Note DHIU does not follow the Kerala State Education Board or Central Board of Secondary Education or Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations the 3 main boards in Kerala but follows Islamic religious curriculum not sure if it is recognised school and hence it cannot be presumed to be notable .Neither is the University recognised.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Running one of many unaccredited south Asian private "universities" is not enough for WP:PROF, and we have inadequate sourcing for any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline promotional. Deb (talk) 10:28, 31 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 Serles. Sandstein 06:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnenstein, Tyrol[edit]

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

Can't find a single reference for Sonnenstein as the name of a mountain in Austria. There's no corresponding article in any other language to compare it to or check for references. The German article for Serles, the mountain it's supposedly related to (De:Serles), doesn't mention it at all (or even make reference to a supposed Trinity of Serles). The NGA GeoNames server doesn't list it, and it's quite comprehensive. There's just nothing to find that I can see. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: no objection to closing as merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment There’s a tour operator offering hikes up it, a hiking route, and a hotel halfway up the mountain, so there’s no doubt it exists. Mccapra (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Serles. It is a part of that mountain, one of the lower peaks map.--Pontificalibus 13:28, 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 01:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. No shortage of book sources for mere existence, and some have information that goes beyond that,
- Sight-seeing in Germany and the Tyrol in the Autumn of 1855, "In many cases the covering of wood is more extensive; and on some of the boldest and loftiest of mounstains, as on the Sonnenstein on the left bank, it reaches to their very summit in the most luxurious profusion."
- Chambers's Journal, "...you soon find it girdled by huge mountains...the gigantic Traunstein, six thousand feet high on the south side, and Sonnenstein opposite." and later "From the huge forest-clad pinnacle of Sonnenstein, the plateau descends softly...in an egg-shaped promonatory...into the lake."
- Catharine Merrill, Life and Letters, "Waldrest is on Mt. Sonnenstein, not on the top, but nearly half way up, and Sonnenstein is one of the highest mountains around Innsbruck. The giant Solstein, a grim, black, sullen monster, which frowns down on the very streets of the city, ..."

SpinningSpark 15:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Serles. This appears to be one of the peaks of that mountain, per Pontificalibus, and possibly a name previously used for the whole mountain, per the sources found by Spinningspark, the most recent of which is dated 1934. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 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] "THE BIG INTERVIEW: Martin Jones, Managing Director, Home Instead Senior Care". Home Care Insight. 22 February 2019. Retrieved 16 March 2019.

[1]