Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 March	26 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Mylett[edit]

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

Non notable subject BodegaBiscuit (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. We have way too many articles on living people who fit this description, while probably not having enough articles on the captains of industry who moved so much of the economy in the mid-20th century.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is likely written either by a fan or a paid promotion house as these continually crop up, often around these MLM types and “online influencers” BodegaBiscuit (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable influencer type. These are a scourge on Wikipedia these days. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:2C (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information Technology Channel[edit]

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

Survived AfD in 2005 but still unsourced. Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything to support notability. I'm sure what they do is important and useful, but not notable. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to support WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The reasons given in the previous AfD do not really apply in the current standards. Even their website linked in the article now redirects to TV Box. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry in motion[edit]

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

I find this article very odd. There is no proper intro so it is not really clear what ‘Inquiry in motion’ actually is. Notability is hard to judge as the ref links are dead. My suspicion arises from the fact that four of the refs cited are by the same lead author. I think this is essentially promotional spam for one person’s pet project. Mccapra (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with your assessment. Any coverage I could find seemed to be written by the person who developed "IIM". I found a study that describes it as "a professional development (PD) project, entitled Inquiry in Motion, designed to (a) facilitate teacher transformation toward greater quantity and quality of inquiry-based instruction, (b) improve student achievement in science practices and science concepts, and (c) begin to narrow the achievement gap among various groups" -- study report also written by same person who seems to have developed the method. Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 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. Sandstein 07:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Newman (Cyber security entrepreneur)[edit]

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

I just can't see how this person is notable by our standards. The sources in our article are very poor – at least three do not mention him at all, one is an "interview", presumably actually an exchange of emails, five are Google patents search results. I've already removed crunchbase and prnewswire. He gets a few hits on GNews, several of them to press-releases, but neither as many or as solid as, for example the ticket tout of the same name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is not the Andrew Newman. When I was looking for personalities, Microsoft stumbled upon this person. --Arxivist (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Using patents as refs are very very poor, and I think illegal on here. Highly promotional. Fail WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suited to: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Hello @Atlantic306:! I saw your input and suggested that you know the reason for the article to be saved. Tell, please. Thanks! --Arxivist (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi,it's not my area so I'll let others decide, except it does not qualify for speedy deletion Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am unable to find substantive coverage in reliable sources, or any other evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The given articles don't look like they count towards demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG. I also found this interview, but it's from the community feed of Spiceworks which doesn't really count as a reliable source. There are some other small articles about some of the projects and startups that he has worked on in the past, but none are significant coverage about him from reliable sources.
The claim for point 2 of WP:ANYBIO mentioned above is also unconvincing, as the footnote for that point reads Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians — MarkH21 (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhi Bharti Parishad[edit]

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

non notable. No significant independent reliable source. ToT89 (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vidhi Bharti Parishad is 25 years old non profitable organisation. 171.79.207.152 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any evidence of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Impassioned Net Generation#Members. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Shen (Debbie)[edit]

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

Non notable. Very trivial coverage in the listed sources. No significant work. ToT89 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Impassioned Net Generation. Subject is not independently notable, but readers searching for the name might find it useful to be directed to the group of which the subject is a member, so redirect per WP:ATD-R. Bakazaka (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Impassioned Net Generation#Members (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is mentioned, in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Impassioned Net Generation#Members. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Shiyin[edit]

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

Non notable. Very trivial coverage in the listed sources. No significant work. ToT89 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Impassioned Net Generation. Subject is not independently notable, but readers searching for the name might find it useful to be directed to the group of which the subject is a member, so redirect per WP:ATD-R. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Impassioned Net Generation#Members (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is mentioned, in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Impassioned Net Generation#Members. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Yao (Miko)[edit]

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

Non notable. Very trivial coverage in the listed sources. No significant work. ToT89 (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Impassioned Net Generation. Subject is not independently notable, but readers searching for the name might find it useful to be directed to the group of which the subject is a member, so redirect per WP:ATD-R. Bakazaka (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Impassioned Net Generation#Members (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is mentioned, in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Friday the 13th media[edit]

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

Page is overall redundant to the Friday the 13th (franchise) page, that contains all notable entries. The franchise page already lists the films, the documentaries, the comics, and the other notable media. This page adds in fan made "shorts" that were eventually stuck on recent blu ray releases of the F13 films. They are not notable by themselves and are the equivalent of "special features" on the F13 blu ray features. Most of the pages on this page either do not have pages themselves, or they redirect to the franchise page that already lists them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The franchise list does not cover a lot of the inforation on this page, such as ISBNs for the books and album releases. With lists you can simply read and navigate around each entry without it being overshadowed by prose and backround information. Lists like these exist for tons of franhises that also have articles because it's helpful. It's not a "replacement" like op accused it of being on the talkpage, it's a complementary work that exists to highlight all sides of the series without it being hard to count and keep track of how many releases there has been. The fact that Bignole does not personally like the short films because they're "extra features" doesn't change the fact that they exist and were officialy released and can be mentioned. Also, being "notable/having it's own article" has nothing to do with if something should be mentioned in a listing of media such as this. That's a nonsensical argument that seems to imply that this list is somehow trying to force these subjects into having pages or something, which is far form the truth, no one would try to make that case against a list of episodes of a tv series "well these episodes don't have articles so there is no point in listing them", that's not how it works.★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We're not here to sell books, so having their ISBN numbers isn't a reason to create a separate page. That said, all the books are sourced by their ISBN numbers, so the franchise page technically does list them at the bottom. As for the red links not meaning anything, I point to WP:LISTPURP: "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space." With exception to the feature films and a couple of comics, the rest of this page is either red links or redirected pages that would have been red links. As for your analogy about the TV series. No, we wouldn't argue based on notability of the TV series episode list, we would argue based on size. As WP:MOSTV has a guide on when to split for an LoE page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Once again a nonsensical argument, this page a zero to do with selling books and this page is also not for the sake of editors, no idea how anyone could make those assumptions. Silly. And if the redlinks are your issue you can simply unlink them. You once again dissmis these subjects because you don't find them to be "real" or official enough, but that's your personal opinion, you can't claim "all this information already exists" and then complain when the page has information which is not included on the main page. Your comment about TV series episodes doesn't help your case remotly, that reasoning about how many or how big an episode list has to be to be split has zero to do with this. You originaly made a very poor argument that these things should not be listed because they're "not notable", which makes zero sense. If your point was about size that's another thing entirely, but you didn't make a comment about that, you argued about notability.★Trekker (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point wasn't about size, I was merely pointing out that your analogy with TV episodes doesn't work because we have a specific guide in place that says when an LoE page is created. I stand by my point that this page is redundant to the franchise page (there are tables for each of these and they are properly sectioned off, so they are actually easier to navigate than this page), and that the majority of this page is filled with non-notable media subjections. Those fan shorts are given undue weight as if they are some officially created media. They are not. They were fan shorts that were eventually included to buff up the special features of the films. That's it. What's interesting is you say "Tons of franchises have lists like these for their media.". Weirdly, I cannot find that to be true. I cannot find this for Terminator, Star Wars, Star Trek, Aliens, DC films, James Bond, Godzilla, Scream, Halloween, Texas Chainsaw, or Child's Play. There was one for Marvel Cinematic Universe!.....redirected to the MCU franchise page. Nightmare on Elm and Saw seemed to have one. The Nightmare one was just the films. Either way, that's not a "Ton", and that was me doing a 2 minute search of all the major franchises I could think of real quick. So, your argument that it's so prevalent isn't holding water. Those others page stand to be questioned as to whether they should exist as well. Especially when you think that a navigation template also serves most of the same purpose. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - And my point was that your argument that "these things aren't individually notable so we shouldn't list them" is bad, and you brought up size for no reason. Also, what "undue weight" is simply listing them of exactly? And for the 100 time, those are not fan films. Your argument that "well these fracnhises don't have them" is also bull, what about the franchises that do have them then by your logic? Like List of Scooby-Doo media, List of Saw media, List of Call of Duty media and List of Naruto media to name a few? Your arguments seems to be 100% based on IDONTLIKEIT.★Trekker (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, I feel it's worth noting that I am the one who made the MCU redirect, because I'm planing on turning it into a list in the future. And while Star Wars, Star Trek, Alien and Terminator don't have lists for all their media they do have lists of their media split up in different types, like List of Star Wars films and television series, List of Star Trek films and television series, List of Alien films and television series and List of Terminator video games for example.★Trekker (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say no franchise has them, I was merely pointing out your claim that "tons have them" was grossly inaccurate. As for the shorts not being notable, there is important. You've placed them on the page as if they are official media of Friday the 13th. They weren't. They were created by a fan, Andrew Ceperley. Paramount and New Line didn't produce those films. He made them because he is a fan and wanted to extend the universe. Why was it include on the Blu-ray? Because Andrew Ceperley worked on "Never Sleeps Again", the Nightmare on Elm Street documentary and has worked in the industry in various roles.

Those films, even if they were actually made by Paramount (which they weren't) are nothing more than special features on a Blu-ray. You lead this page with "media releases from the franchise", except these were never released. They were tacked onto a special feature Blu-ray. You're presenting them here like they were some officially sanctioned short film, when they weren't. You're misrepresenting what they are, which is why it's undue weight being placed on them. I don't see "Fresh Cuts: New Tales from Friday the 13th", "The Man Behind the Legacy: Sean S. Cunningham", "The Friday the 13th Chronicles", or any of the others on those 8 films that had Blu-ray releases for Paramount. Because they are special features. You're treating these shorts like they are official media. They are not. That's not an opinion, that's fact. You have nothing to show to prove that they are official, because they aren't. They were fan shorts that they put on a Blu-ray. Either way, my entire point is that, other than these unofficial short films, everything else is already on tables on the franchise page (which is just as easy to navigate). That makes this page redundant and unnecessary. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that there aren't a lot of media lists on Wikipedia for franchises? There are over 50 included on the Category:Media by franchise page linked below. Have you even checked? Also you don't get to decide when a short film is a "fan film" or "not official" when it's released on an official media release like a DVD or BluRay. How does it matter if they're not produced by Paramount? Paramount didn't produce all the Friday films. Also, no, not everything is on a table on the franhcise page last I checked unless you edited that in now to try to strenghten your poor arguments.★Trekker (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither Paramount nor Warner Bros produced it...that's makes it unofficial. There's a reason that it doesn't use the name "Friday the 13th", or specifically the characters from the F13 franchise. Why the killer is "killer" and not "Jason Voorhees" and why you don't see his face clearly and he isn't wearing the hockey mask. Because it's a fan film and they didn't want to get sued. The fact that Paramount put them on the Blu-ray release doesn't make them officially media of F13. That's why they are a special feature on each of the blu rays, and not a compiled, single film. As for the media category, that's 59 pages (most of which are not film franchise) out of 500 franchise pages we have. That's NOT the "ton" you were claiming to have in existence to support this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a pretty major franchise and has a lot of works related to it. Having the list in this fashion appears to assist in readability to the user and meets the criteria at WP:SAL. And judging by Category:Media by franchise this does not appear to be a one off, so it makes sense to me. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from a notable article with extra valid information, not everything on a list has to have a wikipedia article as it is better to be accurate than just serving as an index page Atlantic306 (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: - the issue isn't just everything on the list not having an article, the issue is that half the list is stuff that is not actual released media for the franchise. It's fan shorts that were merely included as a special feature. It's misleading to readers, as it's presented as some official media of the franchise when it isn't. Everything else is easily navigated to and in tables on the franchise page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bignole: Content within an article is not reason to bring something to AfD, that is something to discuss on the articles talk page. It has no baring on keeping or deleting. Plus I would say we all know your feelings, no reason to keep WP:BLUDGEONing this page. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content of an article can play a role when the article contains information that should not be there as a way of fluffing up its existence. As for my responses, I'm fully allowed to provide counter points to arguments on the page. That's the point of a "discussion". Thanks. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the point of lists. And stop calling officialy released content "fan films" because you don't like it. You're sounding like a broken record and doing nothing but wasting everyones time for no reason except that IDONTLIKEIT.★Trekker (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the six short films are not "half the list", don't lie or try to misslead people because they don't agree with you.★Trekker (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additional sources were brought forth after nomination. The lone "delete" !vote asserts that one of the sources does not help meet notability requirements, but does not discuss the relevance of any of the other sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurelwood Pub and Brewery[edit]

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

Absolutely no meaningful coverage outside of a few sentences in a handful of hyper local sources. Fails GNG and I guess technically NCORP? Praxidicae (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this is obviously a travel guide entry at the moment, the company is actually known for 1) early pursuit of the "certified organic" market in beer, 2) high-profile location(s) in the Portland airport. Searching for "Laurelwood Brewing" in Google Books finds multi-page profiles [1] and (probably PR text) [2], from which the article could be expanded. As expected, there are also lots of bits here and there about its airport locations, including brief mentions in Vogue and The Economist. Bakazaka (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several news searches, try a search with "laurelwood brewery oregon". I've added a couple of sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:14, 18 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? 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject evidently passes WP:GNG and so should be kept for improvement per WP:IMPERFECT; WP:ATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a trivial mention in an article about another business that took over their old physical location. "the same space previously occupied by Laurelwood Brewing. Laurelwood still has a small pub in the A Concourse.". That's a trivial of trivial coverage. Graywalls (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing referenced by others above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 07:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The format of the sources is poor (raw links) and the coverage is sparse at best, but given that the sources do discuss this location in some depth, and given that they appear to be independent of the restaurant, this seems worth retaining. A loose necktie (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are basically all over the shop, and after two relists there is still no agreement as to what to do. If people feel a merge would be a better compromise, that can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of simulation typefaces[edit]

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

This list contains 14 items, 12 of which are not notable enough to have articles of their own. Previously kept at AfD in 2012 on the basis of having notable entries. You could just remove them but that would leave a "list" of two entries which isn't very useful. — Scott • talk 15:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The term "simulation typeface" is itself not sourceable; see below. — Scott • talk 12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed them now which really highlights how pointless this list is. — Scott • talk 10:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not move to simulation typeface (a redirect to this) and make it into a stub with a list in it; with the samples, but without the red links? (ping me if so, and I'll do it - wait a few days I am not here all the time). Deleting wouldn't hurt either, I guess - Nabla (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~@Nabla: Sure, you could do that. It'd be really really stubby as is but that doesn't hurt. — Scott • talk 14:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
  Disregard this, the name is something made up by an editor here - see below. — Scott • talk 12:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the alterations haven't been carried out, the ambiguity in the participants' suggestions make me feel another week wouldn't do any harm and might be beneficial
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Only the first of the three references even contains the word "simulation", and in that case it isn't at all clear that it's mean as a term-of-art. Book searching was even worse: the WP article seems to be the only genuine hit. the notion of "simulation typefaces" doesn't seem to be a thing, at least not under that name. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep The notability rules are for the article, not individual content. There is no requirement that each part of a list must be individually notable, or even most of a list.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...which ignored the core problem that there isn't a "thing" for this to be a list of. If someone can find another name, so be it, but I didn't. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of typefaces#Simulation/Mimicry fonts and Simulation typeface to Typeface#Ethnic typefaces (merging some things if necessary). I don't really think there's enough coverage of simulation typefaces for a full standalone article, but it's already covered at those two articles, meaning there is an appropriate redirect target where it can be covered according to WP:DUE.
(if there is enough content for a standalone article, I'd suggest a move to simulation typeface as suggested by Nabla and reverse merge Typeface#Ethnic typefaces) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Good shout - I hadn't seen either of those article sections and I agree with both of your suggestions of redirects. — Scott • talk 12:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect possibly with some merging, as suggested above; keeps topic covered but avoids having a skeletal list lurching around. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on naming: the two sources that actually name these things call them 'ethnic typefaces' for what it's worth. Mangoe (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Key observation. The first of those two sources ([3] and [4]) is very poor and refers directly to the second one, so I'd argue we only have one source for that name. Google Books doesn't seem to have anything for "ethnic typeface" at all. "Simulation typeface" seems to be a term coined by ChristTrekker when creating the list in 2007 and added to Typeface at the same time. Likewise, "mimicry typefaces" only appeared as a section name there in 2008, having previously been listed as "Typefaces based upon non-Roman-alphabet writing systems". With only a single reference in a magazine article to justify the topic's existence at all, I'm back to thinking that this should be deleted. — Scott • talk 15:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Nabla and redirect all those red links to the section. The samples would be helpful to alot of people; don't orphan them. I know the best wiki (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The title "simulation typeface" is no longer valid as noted above. Also Wikipedia isn't a collection of samples for every typeface. There are plenty of sites that are. We keep it to the typefaces that are notable enough for their own article. — Scott • talk 10:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—given what's there, there's really not much for a real list, and I share Scott's concern that the distinction Wikipedia is using for this list isn't actually based on reliable scholarship. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change into an article with a list section. Not yet sure what the name should be, but probably something like: Ethnic/Mimicry/Simulation/Faux typeface. Here is another source.[5] The fonts in the list don't always need articles, but there should be refs (not to a buy site). Here is a Japanese (Katakana) font that looks like Old English.[6] StrayBolt (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on naming "Simulation font" was used before this article was created in 2007. Here is the paper Characters, Glyphs and Beyond using the term in 2003. Here is the font Faux Arabic using term in 2001 (or at least Jan 2003). A source in my prior post has 6 more terms which I will add to the article. StrayBolt (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreation. I'm not convinced that "simulation font" or "simulation typeface" is actually a recognized term (despite a smattering of uses). I think we could have a useful article on the topic of fonts which, by their stereographic styling, are meant to evoke certain ethnicities, with Wonton font being a good example. Such an article would need to approach the topic in a scholarly way, with good sources. This is not that article. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The most thorough vote came from Michig, who supplied sources. Although two other editors did not agree, they did not challenge the sources specifically. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Bellani[edit]

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

The subject doesn't appear to be notable. Most of the content is unreferenced or celebrity gossip. A Google News search didn't bring up anything useful under either the real name or the stage name. The Passions role on its own is not enough. IMDb lists some further series where he played in multiple episodes, but IMDb is not a reliable source for biographical content, and none of the other roles seem to have made much news. If we go by reliable secondary sources, he'd be most notable for buying and selling a house previously owned by Ellen DeGeneres. Huon (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really that familiar with this actor, so won't be voting, but he also had main role on the TV series RPM Miami. In this news article, it says the show revolved around his character. Couldn't find any quality sources that address him in depth though as the nominator pointed out. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Roles satisfy WP:NACTOR. Coverage isn't plentiful, but sources to confirm roles exist (most found when searching on 'Gerardo Celasco'), e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10]. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing is not at all adequate to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existence does not equal notability. A sentence in Soap Opera Weekly does not make you notable. A loose necktie (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Mencwel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The article was kept on Polish Wikipedia, which is much more inclusive than here, because most editors agreed that any and all presidents of the NGO Miasto Jest Nasze are important (oh, and being a president of this NGO is not his full-time job, it is just his volunteer activity). Well, our criteria are a bit stricter, and being a president of a medium-size NGO is not sufficient to pass any NBIO criteria. All that's left is one or two interviews and some mentions in passing. No source provides in depth, reliable coverage of the subject, he has not won any awards, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unrelated to the notability of the article, I find it interesting that the edit history of the article shows that I created the article, when this is not the case. The only edit I had ever made to the article was to object to a proposed deletion on 00:10, 1 March 2019. At the exact same time, the page's deletion log shows that User:Explicit had deleted the article due to an expired PROD. Both of these events occurring at the same time appears to have resulted in the article being deleted and then recreated in the same minute, erasing the page's edit history and showing myself as the page creator. MarkZusab (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MarkZusab: Yep, I found it strange and you may want to take it to WP:VPT/WP:AN so somebody can review it and file a potential bug report. (Also I couldn't notify the article creator as I couldn't remember who that was...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have restored the history. I did not realize it was contested a few seconds after I had already deleted it. This is not a bug, just a matter of timing. MarkZusab, did you happen to run into an edit conflict when saving your edit? I remember I did when I contested a PROD in a different article shortly after another administrator deleted it. ℯ xplicit 23:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As a group. Perhaps renominate separately. Sandstein 07:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get Out (board game)[edit]

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

Non-notable board game. Can't find anything that shows notability. Natg 19 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, as non-notable board games:

Comment (nominator) I bundled in a few more games that were produced by this company, as their articles were lightly sourced, if at all, and they seem to be non-notable. I question how many of the bluelinks here are actually notable. Natg 19 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Cheapass Games (for Get Out and Bitin') or to James Ernest. I may have edited these way in the past, but they clearly aren't notable today, but they are valid search terms so they can be redirected safely to the notable brand or designer. Probably the same with the bluelinks mentioned above. --Masem (t) 04:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Falling and fightball both have a fair number of reviews ([11] and [12] both have a fair number of reviews listed). I'm leaning keep on those. Redirect the others per Masem. Hobit (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Falling is quite notable and the bundle just requires improvement per WP:ATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:NOTPAPER; and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have refs that show that Falling is notable? Natg 19 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falling was the first published real time card game in the hobby games market. It was followed by BRAWL, which is at least as notable as any other CCG, and then came Fightball and Light Speed. The real-time card game mechanic is quite notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.80.172 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was better to make a separate nomination for each. I will check these soon. Rzvas (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Falling and Fightball. Redirect the rest. Rzvas (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Clare District[edit]

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

LEAs don’t need a page of their own. They vary by election, and the information can better included on the pages for Clare county council elections. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know enough to !vote, but the argument to delete seems reasonable. Note that this is merely one of thousands of almost identical articles ("*Name* is a (subdivision) of *Parent-name*"), created by User:Shevonsilva and helpfully listed on his user page. They are almost all permastubs. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- also per nom. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul G. Andrews (film producer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Provided sources barely even mention him, couldn't find anything better online, subject's most notable accomplishments appear to be producing a barely (if even) notable film and being a judge at a minor film festival.

I originally nominated this for PROD, dePROD by Belovvv, who provided the following sources [13] [14] [15]. However, sources #1 and #2 appear to be about a different Paul Andrews (not to mention being a brief mention and a softball interview, respectively), and #3 is an interview hosted on YouTube (not reliable, not independent). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Fails the parameters of WP:ENT + WP:FILMMAKER - has none of the following:

significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions,
large fan base/significant "cult" following, unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Also,

Is not regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors,
not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
has not created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.
His body of work has not become a significant monument or won significant critical attention.

Agreeing with Rosguill - the Paul G. Andrews who is the subject of this article has been conflated with at least one other individual. The Paul G. Andrews who is listed as producing "Boogie Man" has at least some black or brown hair, the music producer Paul Andrews mentioned in Ref #3 (Manhattan Digest) is a completely different person. Ref #1 also appears to be about this music producer Paul G. Andrews. Refs #4 & #5 don't mention Mr. Andrews at all. Looking at Ref #s 6 & 7, all this does is mention that Mr. Andrews is a judge for the Sochi Film Festival in the shorts/documentary and that "Boogie Man" is up for a feature film award... Things that make you go hmmmmmm...how notable can this film & Mr. Andrews be if he's a judge in a festival where the film is in contention for an award... Ref #8 is a YouTube video, therefore not a reliable source and does nothing to prove notability. And that just leaves the article with one ref, #2, which only mentions Mr. Andrews in passing.... Looks like to me that the article is basically unsourced. Shearonink (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. His credits are for obscure, poorly rated films, so it's not surprising he's received little, if any, media attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixar universe theory[edit]

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

Previously nominated in 2013 for notability issues. It seems to have not really improved since then, relies mostly on bloggers as sources, and reads almost curiously like a conspiracy-theory article. Major claims upon which the article is based (such as Brave taking place in the future, for example) are tenuous at best and absurd at worst. Perhaps most damningly, multiple Pixar sources have stated unequivocally that there is no shared universe, which puts the burden of natability on the bloggers, which I do not feel is met. I do not think the content is presently salvageable. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 19:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this is a notable fringe theory it may be worth an article, but not this one, which is completely incoherent. A brief outline of the theory and the opposing view would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt this rises to the level of notable speculation, but I did find the statement Toys would eventually absorb the zero-point energy, which can travel through wavelengths entertaining. What good are "wavelengths" if you can't travel through them?? XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the comparison would be to something like the Tommy Westphall Universe, which has been discussed in reliable sources for many years, but even that we only cover in a section of another article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are numerous reliable sources discussing this theory, both shown in the article and outside it (for example, NBCNews.com, Today.com, The Independent). This Wikipedia article is messy and warrants clean-up, but the subject is notable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no clean-up can really help the fact that there's no such thing as a Pixar Universe, this is at best Reddit discussion material. The word "theory" is also missuse (if anything, the correct term should be hypothesis). Similar speculations are everywhere on the net, why is this one special and not the Doctor Who-Star Trek Universe hypothesis or the Buffy/Angel-Firefly-Alien franchise universe hypothesis? Truth is, is just a fancy speculation that some Pixar fans find funny. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Similar speculations are everywhere on the net, why is this one special..." Because reliable sources have covered this subject extensively. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What "reliable sources"? Jon Negroni? I see no academic source in the article, mostly Jon Negroni and a couple of blogs. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why you are looking for "academic" sources. There are numerous appropriate news sources that cover this subject. If you reject news sources, I don't know what to tell you. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are discussing relevance here, and current references certainly do not show any mainstream interested on the subject, most references are self-referencial (Negroni's own website for example) and doens't have even one scholarly source. The Tommy Westphal Universe hypothesis has been discussed on scholarly circles and dosen't have its own page. This is basically a Reddit discussion turn into a Wikipedia article. What we should do is to re-direct the article to the Pixar main article adding just a small summary of the hypothesis, criticism and what Pixar personal had said in one or two paragraphs at most. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. It might merit a mention in another article, but I don't think the two sentences one would need to summarize it and the response to it really even deserve keeping this page around as a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dereck Camacho. Also I think this fails WP:N because most of the sources fail to be reliable per WP:UGC, and the the rest fail to meet WP:SUSTAINED. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—insofar as there's coverage of it, it could belong somewhere else. But mostly it's a huge amount of theorycrafting that is waaaay too in the weeds for Wikipedia's general focus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete (G5: created by banned or blocked user) by Bbb23

DK Films[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation. The information is all sourced to multiple publications of a single press release published by the company itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being an author of the article I don't think this will be considered or not, but here is what I have to say about this article, this youtube channel is doing great in India. and been doing notable work creating content like superhero shows on youtube is notable in a country like India. I myself searched for the details about the channel on google but did find at the same place, so decided to write an article about DK films👀ChrisFredErick ⚽️Talk❤️ 19:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not notable, spam and almost certainly G5. Praxidicae (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 25 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelty's Heart[edit]

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

No RS since creation, by a SPA, in May 2014. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination Mccapra (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search online too, and nothing that could be used. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A site:.dk search revealed only brief mentions. Sam Sailor 19:33, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Owen (activist)[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability. Subject is known for one campaign. Many of the article's citations rely on personal testimony and circular reporting. Needs clean-up or delete. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator[reply]

formatting comment: @DavidTTTaylor: - I copied your rationale from the article revision history + added headers/footers that were missing here (you didn't subst afd2 - see Template:AfD in 3 steps or install Twinkle). Please update your nomination rationale if I misrepresented it.Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance Icewhiz DavidTTTaylor (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep subject meets GNG as demonstrated by the references. I'm not sure what "one event" is being referred to by the nominating editor, DavidTTTaylor. Owen's activism spans over a period of several years at this point. Enwebb (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete The activist is not notable outside of this one campaign. As Enwebb says there is no history before 2015. Most of the citations are from personal testimony from the subject and therefore NOR. Suggest article creation for I Want Prep Now if meets WP:N, and merging of this content into that article. --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but four years isn't "one event". Owen was profiled in the BBC, a&u and HIV Equal. These are all secondary sources, not OR or personal testimony from the subject. Enwebb (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are some good sources in the article, but many key points which indicate notability are quotes from the subject. There's also a fair bit of circular reporting. WIll lean-in and see if we can improve the article together --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been WP:BEFORE. I appreciate your willingness to improve the article, though. I've gone ahead and added more references. Up to you if you want to close this AfD early yourself or let it run the course. Enwebb (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the article is improved - thank you! Still minded that subject is not notable, and article should form part of an article on the I Want Prep Now campaign. Will work on creating and propose a merge. In the meantime will Speedy Close this AfD. DavidTTTaylor (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 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. Sandstein 07:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P P Suneer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not elected, fails WP:NPOL. Cabayi (talk) 16:15, 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 Keep and withdraw. 103.220.38.163 (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chowkidar Chor Hai[edit]

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

My reason for deletion:- This article was redirected as a blatant violation of SOAPBOX but the creator of the aritcle reverted redirect. This article is violating WP:BLP as it claims the Indian Prime Minister of being a "thief", and that is just an absurd allegation made by his opposition. This is nothing notable since this also happens in many other placed in the world. I agree such article cannot serve other than WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOT. 103.220.38.163 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is already a page similar to this: Achhe din aane waale hain, FYI. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that page, like Make America Great Again, is not a BLP violation or a politically motivated attack, contrary to this page in question. 103.220.38.163 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article. It is a Notable Election campaign slogan that is used by both BJP and Congress, This has been covered in reliable sources both national and international for six, months now and was first used five years back and since then been regularly used by Narendra Modi. As noted above, Achhe din aane waale hain was another slogan used by BJP that has its own article. Category:Political catchphrases and Category:Indian political slogans pages would make it clear to anyone that Wikipedia covers notable political slogans.--DBig Xrayᗙ 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick keep doesn't violate anything. It's a slogan used and calling him "thief" you can claim to be a violation by opposition. If you think it is some kind of hoax and is criticized, add them to the article. If it is a controversial slogan, add that with proper sources, it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. I see this AFD just to make POV. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I can see concerns about WP:RECENTISM, WP:NEOLOGISM, lasting encyclopedic value etc and maybe in a year we can look back and, based on amount/type of coverage in non-news media, judge whether Chowkidar Chor Hai, Main bhi chowkidar etc are better off merged back into 2019 Indian general election. That said, the existence of the article does not present BLP concerns because, (1) wikipedia reporting (based on reliable sources) about an opposition party making political insinuations about the ruling party and its leader is not equivalent to wikipedia making those insinuations, and (2) the Indian PM is clearly a public figure and the slogan is clearly a political opinion/attack (I would be more concerned if a literal 'chowkidar' was being called a thief; or, if a public figure was being accused of, say, beating their children). Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare You may not know but BLP applies on titles as well. See Arbcom ruling: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Principles or more specifically Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#The BLP policy and article titles. Which individual are we talking about when we are discussing "chowkidar chor hai"? That's how it is a BLP violation. "Main bhi chowkidar" gives 9,50,000 results while "Chowkidar chor hai" gives only 3,82,000 results in Google News. Which one is the more WP:COMMONNAME? I could agree with merging but the whole subject is clearly not anything more than a fad. 42.111.147.240 (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nomination rationale is worthless. I, though, need to think about whether this solgan or Main Bhi Chowkidar is apt for the title.∯WBG^converse 06:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Abecedare, Probably let the time decide about the future of this article, right now it is definitely keep. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 10:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the term has been widely used by reliable sources. Neiltonks (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - vide the completely arbitrary arguments made by the AfD proposer. AshLin (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple independent secondary sources that seem to be reliable that give significant coverage to the slogan itself (Indian Express, Times of India, Huffington Post, The Telegraph), means it definitely passes WP:GNG. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:59, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Tanwani[edit]

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

Promotional article for non notable entrepreneur, written by SPA. The first two references are self-serving interviews where she says what she pleases about herself and her company. The third is basically a copy of them, and essentially a press release. Not a single one is independent, and considering the fundamental lack of having done anything notable, there is not likely to be anything better. DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could potentially be COI. I want to bring up Shilpa Sharma, which is edited by this user along with this and this account as SPA. I suspect sock puppetry. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources that I could find are social media links, and others, as mentioned by the nominator are self-seeking interviews, clearly fails WP:GNG. Business leaders of non-notable companies are not notable, unless they have importance in some other field, WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. In this case, "Pinklay Retail Private Limited" is definitely not-notable. It is just another home goods store. KCVelaga (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PR cruft: lacks the most basic coverage in reliable sources required to pass WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 18:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:PROMO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference not stong and Source not for enough keep this articlel. advertisement, promoted, violence.Swe123123 (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO piece. Lapablo (talk) 16:14, 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. Sandstein 07:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Shopian firing incident[edit]

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

This was just like one of the hundreds of encounters that take place in Kashmir Valley on a daily basis. This article is an exaggeration of an event which never got any coverage after a few days of the event. These types of encounters are very common in Kashmir, the sources used are mainly Breaking News sources which didn't cover the topic after a few days. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. ML^talk 15:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage was temporary. Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. lorstaking 01:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete Temporary coverage. Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - as of today only temporary coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above participants, but wanted to add that searching for sources suggests this was one of at least a few such "incidents" of which most if not all appear to be largely short-term news items. This may be the worst of them, but doesn't seem particularly notable in the grand scheme of an encyclopedia. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pulwama encounter[edit]

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

This was just like one of the hundreds of encounters that take place in Kashmir Valley on a daily basis. This article never got any coverage after a few days of the event. These types of encounters are very common in Kashmir, the sources used are mainly Breaking News sources which didn't cover the topic after a few days. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. ML^talk 15:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Temporary coverage. Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. lorstaking 01:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete, could be mentioned in Kashmir article, but otherwise just one of many such events and fails for stand alone article, per WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the continuing coverage for this, and the name of the article is atrocious as there have been several other such encounters - 11 March, 5 March, 29 December 2018, Newyear 2018 [16], Feb 2019. Then I find this - this from Jan 2019 saying "SHOPIAN: For the past four consecutive Saturdays, Pulwama’s Tral and nearby area has seen four gunfights, during which 16 militants, 7 civilians, and one army soldier have been killed. Locals have noted this correspondence with Saturday and are speculating if this is some special strategy of government forces, or some particular reason, for choosing this day.. So is this a recurring gunfight? There might be an article to be had from stringing all of these together (if some sources does so) - but not for a single event AFAICT. Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Foote[edit]

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

Not notable local judge. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his elected office isn't enough to put him over WP:NPOL and the quality of the sources used are well below the standards needed to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL Reywas92^Talk 06:03, 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Germaine[edit]

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

Really no career to speak of and the references are all tabloids. No “sources” out there could save this. Trillfendi (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone actually interested in sources, quick search finds, among other coverage, a 1300-word front page profile in The Times (Connolly, Joseph (24 October 1996). "The truthfullest man in the world". The Times. p. 1.) and a summary of her career in the academic book Talk of Drama (Day-Lewis, Sean (1998). Talk of Drama: Views of the Television Dramatist Now and Then. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9781860205125.). Granted, her TV/film roles did not stray far from Dennis Potter. Bakazaka (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly notable The article needs to be developed Lubbad85 (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets requirements of WP:ENT, article clearly needs to be developed. W C M_email 14:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Bakazaka. Aside from that, I'm not sure that the condescending tone used in the nomination itself was necessary. matt91486 (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did find another article here [17], which is mainly a review of a TV movie, but does touch on Germaine's acting ability for a rather considerable portion of it. It wasn't immediately clear to me how to incorporate it into the text, but wanted to document it in case anyone is doing a rewrite of the article. matt91486 (talk) 10:43, 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. Sandstein 07:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Networks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

These are the only sources I can find (1, 2). I don't think the requisite depth of coverage is there to establish corporate notability. SITH (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing a software firm's wares without indicating specific notability. Searches found a brief item about this firm's participation in an Intel initiative for small-medium-size businesses [18] but neither that nor the sources mentioned above (or still visible from the previous AfD) rise above routine announcements to the level required for the current WP:NCORP standard. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deana Lykins[edit]

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

All local coverage typical of what you would think of for a local politician. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely. Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — they have to win the election and thereby hold the seat to pass NPOL, and otherwise the only other routes to a Wikipedia article are to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway (the Cynthia Nixon highway), or to be sourceable to such an unusually large volume of reliable source coverage, exploding far beyond the bounds of what every candidate in every election can always show, that she's got a credible claim to being special (the Christine O'Donnell path). Neither of those things are in evidence here at all, however. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.32.23 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not elected, fails WP:NPOL. Cabayi (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Brooks[edit]

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

Not seeing how this person passes notability. Fails WP:NFOOTY IMO and there is nothing else I can see that would make him notable. Written as an advert, which if removed would leave nothing to show notability Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no hint of notability here. Autobiography of a guy who plays semi-pro football while holding down a day job, that's it.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Article has COI issues with a SPA Marvinbrooks19 who also classily added a shirtless photo forgetting this is Wikipedia not some tacky dating app.Dougal18 (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional, no notability either footballing or general. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 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. It's an article, despite mistakenly being created in the book namespace, sop AfD looks like the correct forum. Sandstein 07:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Book:The Chords of Vengeance[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. This looks like an obvious advertising effort, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious advertising. It looks like the article author is also the author of the book. JIP | Talk 11:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this a discussion that should be happening at WP:MFD, not here, since the page is in the Book: namespace? IntoThinAir (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@IntoThinAir: I'm glad you asked. It appears that Davis6969's intent was to write an article about his book, not realizing the namespace issue. When I nom'd, I could have moved this back into the main namespace first. This isn't a book in the "book" namespace so I chose AfD because of the nature of the material. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:28, 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. Clear consensus that this content does not belong, and there are likely TOU violations for UPE. I will redirect it to the parent article afterwards, but that page's suitability for inclusion is left to others. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SugarDaddyMeet.com[edit]

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

Non-notable dating site. I propose it is redirected to Successful Match, the company the site is run by. SugarDaddyMeet is. Tropicanan (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Fails WP:NORG, most of coverage in passing/trivial/promotional. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Successful Match. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Most of the sources discuss Cody Wilson's sexual assault charge, which is already described in his article. — Newslinger talk 12:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Successful Match. Fails WP:GNG. I could not find any neutral secundary in dept sources using the 145 actual google results. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Purely promotional content, therefore falls under WP:G11. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Successful Match: I don't disagree with Hiwilms concerning the present article, which does not more than gloss the site's features, along with some content/references about the parent company and about one individual. A redirect may be best for the moment, though, as it is mentioned (in unreferenced content) on the page about Successful Match, which itself has a longstanding notability query which may be appropriate to bring here separately. AllyD (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article is a promotional puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 01:30, 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. This decision does not preclude a better sourced page on the topic. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yemens Military Industry[edit]

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

This is a truly ludicrous article. They are making MP18's? A century-old first generation submachinegun? Or WWI Vickers machineguns? I can't find anything in Google Books or online for a company with this name, neither of the external links actually mention this company, and they aren't reliable in any case. I think it is probably a hoax. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete assuming this is not a hoax it is most likely (given what they are "making") some back street arms manufacturer. Either way its unsourced (for 4 years)
Delete agree it's possibly a hoax; if not it is of not value. Mccapra (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Probably not a hoax (see [19], [20]) though quite possibly off by many details. The name is also an issue (it seems this is the state run industry and the title is descriptive). I'm at delete since the current content doesn't pass WP:V, is unsourced, and is TNTable. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure, sure the Yemeni government are making weapons, but not MP-18's or Vickers. Thus (I suspect) what we have is someone having read these articles (or something like them) and then invented a cover company name to crate this article with no knowledge of what they are (or make).Slatersteven (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said off by many details - though producing variants of submachine guns isn't so odd - e.g. the MP 18 per our article was the basis for most SMGs manufactured in the 1920s through 1960s. There is some indigenous industry currently controlled by the Houthis - how we should name it, source it, or include at all? Good question. I suspect an article could be developed on the subject - though the present article is far from acceptable (hence - my delete vote) on WP:V grounds.Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Presumably there is a defence industry in Yemen, but the content of this article is so dubious we'd be better off starting from scratch. Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Locatelli (footballer)[edit]

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

Locatelli fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in an FPL or senior international game. Also fails GNG Dougal18 (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The highest level Locatelli has played at is the Swiss Challenge League (1) which is the second tier of Swiss football. Per WP:FPL, the Swiss Challenge League is not fully professional and, therefore, Locatelli fails WP:NFOOTY. Tropicanan (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rough search in google using "Andrea Locatelli + .ch" did not generated a list of result that contain GNG passing article. Matthew hk (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aliya Prokofyeva[edit]

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

Only PR, with no substantial coverage to show notability . DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This person has relevance to Wikipedia. Her activities are covered in CNN. If there are problems in the text, then I am ready to fix it! Çelebicihan (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources - praising this person (...is a space visionary, ...owner of the global future foundation). Criticism is absent. Self PR. — Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 07:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- _cheloVechek If this is the problem, then I can rework this article. Why delete ? If the person has relevance? Or do you have a personal dislike for me? Çelebicihan (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - is there any coverage of her outside of Russia, other than promotional bios at conferences she attended? I saw "Business Punk" seems to have an article about her in German, but I'm unfamiliar with "Business Punk", and whether it meets WP:RS. I'm certainly not seeing any sources which suggest notability beyond self-promotion. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions here and there. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and a whole lot of Press pieces, this is a promo page. Lapablo (talk) 07:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ulmer[edit]

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

promotional article for non notable advocate. We should not be misled by the sympathy for what he is promoting. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He has one significant award and one very extensive article by the BBC. Possibly a bit premature, but this is a specialist field where it is probably unusually hard to gain much notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Believe he has gained enough coverage, both nationally and internationally by independent, reliable, 3rd party sources, as shown by this Google News search [21]. Does his message pull at the heart strings, of course! But that does not disqualify the message or the current coverage, of both the individual and cause, with additional exposure guaranteed to come. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shoessss, sufficient mainstream media sources exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how sufficient you feel the sources are, Yes he is covered by BBC but lets look at this critically, if we accepted every subject that was written about just once by BBC and a whole bunch of passing mentions we would have a whole lot of spam here. For me, it still doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV, for now it only serves to promote the subject. Lapablo (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has been covered nationally and internationally over a sustained period by ABC News, the BBC (as mentioned above), USA Today, as well as local news stations, all of which are significant coverage of the subject and not merely mentions. I did some article clean up, replacing social media refs, as well as adding content, which expanded the article some. The subject has also received 2 awards (here and here). Based on the reliable, 3rd-party sources, the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:31, 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 redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Warriors (Masters of the Universe)[edit]

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

Pretty much the entirety of the article is a duplicate from List of Masters of the Universe characters, making this article unnecessary. Merge or redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters. JIP | Talk 08:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:38, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

México, road to the 2022 FIFA World Cup Qatar[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a place to speculate on who will win the World Cup PrussianOwl (talk) 07:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Yeah this one is just complete speculation and is definitively not needed here. Not Homura (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:NOTADVOCACY, and probably not newspaper/diary as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete fail WP:GNG Hhkohh (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this clearly isn't intended to be "speculat[ion] on who will win the World Cup" but rather to factually detail Mexico's qualification campaign. However this (once it actually starts!) will be covered at 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF). It has never been standard practice to have separate articles for individual countries' qualification campaigns -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Giant Snowman 13:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick delete I've seen this kind of article deleted before. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article fails WP:CRYSTAL, and seems to contain little actual information. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 16:02, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Chaudry[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 06:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smacks of an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion, self-promotion vanity article. Does not meet WP:GNG. W C M_email 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotion aside, the sources aren't sufficient. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - promotional, no valid sources QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:30, 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. I am willing to provide a userspace copy to anyone who wishes to develop this further. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Blair Moore[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG (not much besides these obituaries: from his former employer, a cartoonist blog, and a former collaborator. Also doesn’t seem to pass WP:AUTHOR. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article was BLP-prodded on March 5, 2018 and the de-prod was due to the addition of two external wiki sources (not RS). — MarkH21 (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one additional source, and can only say that I think, when deciding whether to delete or not delete, it is better for Wikipedia to include information if the issue is at all in doubt. John Blair Moore wrote and drew comic books for major publishers, most notably Disney. If he had worked in the superhero genre, his work would probably have been more widely reviewed.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think the obituary from the St. Louis Dispatch is still a good one, and a very in-depth article. He seems like he might be notable, but I am honestly not sure how reputable some of those comic book publications are. Without those, I wonder if a redirect and partial merge to the Dispatch might be better. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As the Dispatch is the subject's former employer, it is not independent of the subject. If it was not connected to the subject then it could count towards WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources (currently I see none). Similarly, I don't see evidence that his works pass WP:AUTHOR, WP:ARTIST, or another alternative notability criterion. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search turned up the sourced mentioned int he AFD nom, and not much else. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - working on notable characters in comics doesn't confer notability to the artist, it just means he was a typical freelancer. There's no indication he added anything of significance to any of the Disney properties the way Carl Barks did, for example. There are probably print reviews of his Piranha Press series in trade magazines, but creating one (possibly) notable series doesn't meet my criteria for a stand-alone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But this is a personal, esthetic judgement. There are more than a thousand American comic book artists with articles on Wikipedia. I would rank Moore in the top ten percent. I hate to see him forgotten. But it is true that he has attracted relatively little notice. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you say that because the notability policy is actually based on attracting notice, in the form of reliable published sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that notability is entirely based on "attracting notice". There are many examples of people who are famous today who died in obscurity. But, I admit it makes it a hard call. How do you weigh the opinions of a few who care passionately about an art form against the opinions of the many who have no interest in that art form. The art form in this case is the non-superhero comic book, but I think it would be hard to find many living American poets who have attracted much notice, and yet Wikipedia has articles on more than a thousand articles on 21st century American poets, and I'm glad that it does. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to have your own opinion on the matter, but Wikipedia measures notability by the amount of attention a subject garners. That's important because third party reporting is what we (ideally) use to build articles. Coverage isn't limited to mass market outlets read by people with no interest in the topic. Trade magazines like The Comics Journal and Comic Buyer's Guide and websites like Comics Beat are considered reliable for their field. If you can find web or print articles on John Blair Moore, you might be able to persuade others here that he's worth including. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion of Comics Beat. I checked it out, and will cite its obituary of Moore on the JBM page.Rick Norwood (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward Delete, but Userfy seems acceptable. I haven't found evidence of notability, but, perhaps with the help of Rick's Facebook friends, he can find published articles about about this artist. It's not absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has drawn attention from editors who may personally know the article creator, Rick Norwood (talk · contribs), due to a Facebook post by the him (noted here by Orangemike (talk · contribs) and alluded to above). — MarkH21 (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several references and quotes from reviews of his work, which is, of course, what I should have done in the first place.Rick Norwood (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rick Norwood. Anything worth merging can be retrieved from the history. Randykitty (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscript Press[edit]

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

Google search does not give any reliable secondary sources with significant coverage for the article to pass WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some expansion to the article and found several sources. It's definitely a small company, and hasn't had much press coverage. Markvs88 (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rick Norwood. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps relevant that there is currently an AfD for the proposed target. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rick Norwood, or Delete if the target is deleted. Fails WP:COMPANY. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has drawn attention from editors who may personally know the founder of the publisher, Rick Norwood (talk · contribs), due to a Facebook post by the him (noted here by Orangemike (talk · contribs)). — MarkH21 (talk) 07:06, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yue Safy[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Yet to appear in a fully professional league. The PROD was contested by the article's creator while logged out (no assumption of bad faith), without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG fail. SportingFlyer T·C 05:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one article of about a 30 created by the same user and not having any shadow of notability--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the source which provides data about the international is sufficiently reliable it could be kept indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Yue 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) 11:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as nominator. Not sure how I managed to miss the international appearance. Anyway, the article meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY per above, having played for the national team. Any way we can close this so we don't spend another week wasting our time? Smartyllama (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cambodia national football team, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. 1 sub appearance is just barely scraping by NFooty. There is no coverage from which to write a stand-alone article; it's all routine. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] We shouldn't have a stand-alone just with players' stats per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. So merge to the national team and he can have a section there. All of the players who barely pass NFooty and have no SIGCOV can be listed there, and we can include their stats if we want to. Plus, we'll only have page to monitor for vandalism instead of twenty-something. If/when he gets more coverage, the redirect can be turned back into an article and we can drop a {main} tag to his article from his section at Cambodia national football team. Leviv ich 01:18, 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 Adal Sultanate. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adal Kingdom[edit]

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

There doesnt seem to be a Adal Kingdom in the 9th century. Adal is only first mentioned as a district within another polity in the 13th century, see here on p. 74 [27] List of kingdoms in the area, are in this order: Sultanate of Showa, Ifat Sultanate in the 12-13th and finally Adal Sultanate, see p.56-57 [28] p.83 [29] Adal also seems to be flat term for region rather then a state. p. 75 [30] Magherbin (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems fake to me. 我是一位中国人 (🇨🇳) 15:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Encylopedia Americana reference in the article does briefly mention such a kingdom. [31] There are several other what I would characterize as low quality references (e.g. self-published book [32]) claiming that Al-Yaqubi wrote of such a kingdom in the 9th century, presumably in Kitab al-Buldan (Arabic: كتاب البلدان‎) (Book of the Countries). I thought it would be fairly easy to check in an english translation but while I can find public domain arabic versions, (e.g. [33]) I am failing to find one in english. Even if it could be verified that Al-Yaqubi wrote of such a kingdom, one would want secondary sources discussing the reliability of such an early work. It is possible that such sources exist in Arabic, but I am not aware of them. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC) The 1955 Lewis reference in the article (p. 140) [34] mentions the Al-Yaqubi account and some subsequent 10th century references, e.g. by Istakhri, Ibn Hawqal and Al-Muqaddasī. Some of these early accounts are discussed at both Zeila#Adal_kingdom and Adal_Sultanate#Establishment. I am coming to an opinion that consolidating all the early accounts, perhaps by merging to Adal_Sultanate#Establishment might be the best way forward. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think Al Yacubi mentioned Adal rather Zaila, however most historians seem to think the Zaila entity was most likely Adal's precursor, most early sources claim a kingdom of zaila later evolving into adal sultanate existed, noting arabic texts as explained on p.12 [35] For future purposes perhaps a seperate Adal region article could be started based on sources like these which claims adal is sometimes a vague term p.52 [36] p.20 [37]. Merger seems fine for now though, I just noticed merger was proposed by User:Mouthwash15 and User:Berek on the talk page of the article Magherbin (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merge, actually. On a side note, the lack of English-language references is a common problem I deal with regularly on my to-be articles, so I'm used to it. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 16:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adal_Sultanate#Establishment. I agree with the reasoning above: it's hard to see that there's enough source material for a separate article on this kingdom (until more archaeological work has been done, at least), and the material here could readily and usefully be integrated into Adal_Sultanate#Establishment (which is already linked as a main article from Zeila#Adal_kingdom). Alarichall (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Adal Sultanate - All of the material currently in the article would be better in part removed and in part inserted into the existing article. The supposition this article makes is that the Adal Sultanate existed earlier than the 15th century not that a distinct Kingdom existed. If the supposition was that a distinct kingdom existed, then perhaps I would support merger with Sultanate of Mogadishu or keep. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably redirect but I am not sure where. I see a problem with the alleged date of establishment: is it 9th century in Islamic dating? Apart from the problem with the date, I would guess the target should be Adal Sultanate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But the Adal Sultanate did not even exist until 1415, succeeding the Ifat Sultanate after its fall to Dawit of Ethiopia? KallebTigray (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Crimes[edit]

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

I do not see any basis for notability , but knowing my inability to judge in this field,I bring this here for community discussion, rather than list it for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel she may meet this criterion for notability "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city"- especially has she has recieved a good deal of attention a queer rapper in Colorado. She has been frequently covered by the Colorado Press including a lengthy profile in Westword.--Awatkins123 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can't find much on her actual music but she has been sufficiently noticed by the queer/LGBT press, and several such sources are already in the article. An argument can be made for passing #1 and #7 at WP:NSINGER. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passed GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 22:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of broad, significant coverage. One source doesn’t cut it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:52, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the reasons given by the people who want to keep article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 00:59, 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)} 14:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understand the Art of China[edit]

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT. Notice that the article creator is probably the book author judging from their username. Timmyshin (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete zero independent sources found. In fact, a search returns only four results for "Understand the Art of China" as a phrase (Amazon, Goodreads, Bingska.com and the New York Times-- but the Times was talking about understanding the art of China the country, not China the porcelain). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (quickly please:)), WP:NOTPROMOTION, appears to have been created by author of this book for the sole purpose of making their book known. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 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 redirect to The Boys Are Back (film). Randykitty (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas McAnulty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Actor with questionable notability. So far just 2 roles, unknown if he will still act or not even. Wgolf (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I usually check to see if AFD before. This time I didn't....Well let's see if it stands still. Wgolf (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-okay so one of the few times I didn't check to see it was afd before, he might actually pass notability. Granted Wikipedia was a lot more lenient 10 years ago, so I will see what others think. Wgolf (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Boys Are Back (film). Nothing found to indicate any notability. Yes they acted in the one film in a serious role but that was a one off. Other film appearances seem to have been only in a 6 minute short and a 2 minute short. Essentially a single event from which notabilty cannot be presumptively inherited anyway. If we give them the benefit of any doubt, then I suggest it is just simply TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the previous discussion was probably based on the assumption that he would continue his then promising career but in reality it more or less ended after the one notable film so WP:NACTORis not passed Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Malka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just not seeing notability for this article... There is a NYTimes profile, but that's the only thing I see indicating notability for the person themselves. Companies he has founded are not incredibly big, so as coverage of them doesn't confer notability to him. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eddie891, I have never worked on this article before, but now have a WP: COI as a paid editor for Ribbit Capital. There is another long feature story about him: Venezuelan’s Plan to Reinvent U.S. Financial Services (Ozy Magazine) and his VC firm has now expanded to have $2 billion under management. Ribbit Capital Exceeds $2 Billion in Assets Under Management With New Fund (Wall Street Journal) His representatives tell me there are more articles about him in hard copy from South America. I'm going to have to wait a day or two to get these. Since you're the only editor to be involved, according to past experienced with User: DGG, you could remove the Afd temporarily to let me get those sources reviewed through a Request Edit and/or you could pull the article from mainspace to draft, where I can work on it directly, highlighting proposed changes for review. Then you can immediately put it back into AfD after it's updated, if you want. Let me know if that might be OK. Best, BC1278 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the refs quickly as you had them. Please format them--that's an acceptable direct edit. DGG ( talk ) 21:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep The problem with articles on the heads of venture capital funds is that they are usually so closely associated with the fund, that we do not really need two articles. Until they become prominent in political or charitable activities, there really isn't that much different to say. In this instance, there might be a case , for doing it on the person, because he had previously founded a $700 million online brokerage. So I'd keep this, and merge the article on the firm into it. When there's enough to split, it can be split. (My personal idea of when a financial company becomes notable is about $1 billion). DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cabayi (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete From the articles it seems he has some slight notability simply by being one of the few people from South America to move in to this sector, and from having some brushes with others' notable companies, but it seems really iffy that his fund is notable and without that his visibility drops. Some of the article seems to be skating really close to promo as well. JamesG5 (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the recent results of an AfD for Ribbit Capital were to merger it into this article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ribbit_Capital_(company). Substantial sections of Ribbit Capital were merged into the article on March 26, 2019 by User:Northamerica1000 and Ribbit Capital now redirects to Meyer Malka. BC1278 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete: not independently notable of the company which does not appear to be notable itself. Fails WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sources:

"The 2016 Fintech Finance 35: Meyer (Micky) Malka (#11)". Institutional Investor. 14 November 2016.
"Human C@aplital: Meyer Malka and Atonin Turco, Two Local Leader of the New Economy, Talk About How They Got Started". El Nacion. 20 September 2000.
"Generations NET: Three Young Men Made the First Million Operation in Venezuela". Inversiones. 1 April 2000.
Chernova, Yuliya (September 13, 2018). "Ribbit Capital Exceeds $2 Billion in Assets Under Management With New Fund". www.wsj.com. Wall Street Journal. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)— Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley A. Guglielmo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Sources include an article on an insurance commissioner election, an advertisement, a link to the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Fame, a genealogy website, an unlinked link to his obituary and an unknown deadlink. Penale52 (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Billy Hathorn Special. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the clearer component here is WP:NPOL (as an elected position not comparable in importance to those included), the level clearly isn't met. No obvious redirect target Nosebagbear (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep elected statewide constitutional official; member of Political Hall of Fame71.41.193.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added new RS and I feel the subject now meets WP:GNG. Additionally, I feel that this person does, in fact, meet WP:NPOL because he held and (elected and constitutional) "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". Emass100 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject was elected to the position of Louisiana Insurance Commission. That said, the article itself should be completely rewritten to focus on the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the late arrival of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent comments above. TheEditster (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first Clarion Herald source doesn't cover Dudley in much detail and doesn't appear to meet SIGCOV. The 2nd Clarion Herald source appears to just be a political ad, failing WP:INDEPENDENT, so definitely doesn't help notability. The cdnc includes a small amount on Dudley that definitely doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. So these extra sources don't appear to aid notability. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Take a look at this. Pages after pages of RS covevage on this subject in the Monroe News Star and the Monroe Morning World. Sadly I cannot access these article to assess if they are significant coverage, nor add them in the article, but I think the sheer amount of them demonstrates well the notability of the subject. Emass100 (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN Lubbad85 (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be clear, my keep position is based on the subject passing WP:NPOL as a statewide elected official (Louisiana Insurance Commissioner). There is a presumption of notability for individuals who "have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office." --Enos733 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep as he was a statewide elected official and therefore passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:24, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Crisp[edit]

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

No significant coverage in RS and no tangible achievements that I can find that would contribute to notability. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear GNG fail. I saw a few gallery listings but no independent reporting.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Lubbad85 (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Crenshaw[edit]

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

Created in December 2008 by a SPA with the curiously coincidental name of User:Crenagain! It survived an A7 nomination in December 2010 and a PROD was contested in February 2011‎ with the rationale "removing prod, article now has a source, also was not elegible because previously undeleted". A search for sources has failed to reveal anything that would constitute a pass of WP:NMUSIC. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Google search found that this musician exists and plays local gigs, but I found no evidence that he is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this subject Lubbad85 (talk) 14:58, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights in Asia[edit]

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

This article is very broad, poorly written, and does not include Western Asia, a substantial part of Asia. Other users such as Zujine seem to agree. --Thenabster126 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - no valid reason for deletion, An obviously notable and important topic. Improve the article if you don't like the current content AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Alasdair, the article does not encompass all of Asia, but this is no reason to delete the article, in the worst case,you could merge this article, but human rights in Asia is already a broad enough theme to require an article on its own. Garlicolive (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Zujine, needs to improve writing. --SalmanZ (talk) 12:39, 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 Move to Draft space.. While the article was felt to be unready for main space in its current form, the sourcing appears to exist to meet the football/soccer SNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1994-95 Persib Bandung season[edit]

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

I feel like this article should be deleted because its from a second tier team in Indonesia that is isn't a professional league at the time. Not Homura (talk) 07:12, 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 per nom, fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 13:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per below. Potentially notable, needs work. Giant Snowman 11:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: you may wish to re-visit as it has been clarified that this article is about a top-level professional team and the nominator's statement above seems to be misleading... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This is a really odd nomination. This is not a good article - it's an unsourced structure of the article - but a quick look shows Persib Bandung won the Indonesian championship that year and then went on to qualify for what was then the group stage of the AFC Champions League and haven't been relegated since they won this thing. I don't think the article fails WP:NSEASONS, but it fails some combination of WP:NOTSTATS, so I suggest draftifying this so it can be worked on. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see where you are coming from as it's something that you would see in a draft. The thing is that the fact that the person who created the article @Teguhkrismanto: only edits have been these seasonal articles for this team with the last edits being three months ago on this article and before that it was 2016. Not Homura (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - although this is was a horrible article, the nominator seems to be a bit confused, as in 1994-95 Persib Bandung played at the highest level of football in Indonesia (not the second) and RSSSF says it was fully professional. I have removed all the badly formatted unsourced stuff and written some sourced prose that clarifies that this article relates to a season in which a pro team won the national league of its country..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The league they played in might have been the top-tier at that time but it is now known as Liga 2, which is not listed at WP:FPL...je suis confused. Giant Snowman 10:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the page linked above, RSSSF also says here "the Liga Sepakbola Utama (1979-1994) was a semi-professional, the Liga Indonesia (1994-2007) a professional league." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, in my lifetime, in England, Division Four has become League Two. Very confusing. As an analogy, this season article is about them winning the first iteration of Division One, and with the Premiership being created later on. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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