Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 March	27 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 merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse J. Schwartze Memorial Catholic Center[edit]

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

Fails Notability, specifically WP:NBUILD. Unremarkable building less than twenty years old. No References. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge either to the Cathedral or the diocese, both which have articles and are notable. The diocesan offices are NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree... I cannot find any sources for this other than catholicmissourianonline.com and the diocese and cathedral page. I suggest merge with diocese page due to its role. Markvs88 (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as detailed above as not independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:38, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Town, Missouri[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:GEOLAND. A suburban neighborhood of St. Charles, Missouri. Perhaps not typical in design, but otherwise unremarkable. Original article was highly promotional in tone. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm new-ish to chiming in on these sorts of things, so I'm not sure of the etiquette here. How do I vote to support this article's deletion? The article is about a unique subdivision development and still has a promotional tone. I have recently discussed other issues on the article's talk page.--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey DiamondRemley, it was actually your comment on the talk page that inspired me to nominate it, something I’d considered doing for a while. I’ve edited your comment to indicate your opinion. If you want to input on other AfDs just use that same format. “Delete” could be replaced by “Keep” or “Merge” as you will see on other nominations. Thanks for your input! Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Grey Wanderer!--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note for the two of you: it is usually considered bad form to modify a discussion or talk page entry made by another person, even to correct it in minor ways and even if you know they "won't mind." If a person needs to fix their own entry, they are allowed to do so, but since we never can know exactly what another editor was thinking, we usually just point out the typo via their talk page and let them correct it, or not, as they see fit. That's all! A loose necktie (talk) 09:05, 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker (2019 film)[edit]

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

youtube video with unsourced claims that some of which at least are untrue. Article appears to have been created by the film maker. noq (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION, and sources are not there for it to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other inputs/recommendations above. The subject appears to be film made by secondary level students which may (or may not frankly given the lack of available refs) have been submitted for an award by its creators. And therefore no more notable than the 1700 other films apparently self-submitted by other school-goers for consideration in the same competition. The claims made in the article do not stack up (for example about the people involved working in "action films in Europe"). And are not supported by reliable/independent references. Falls substantively short of WP:GNG, WP:NFILM and other guidelines and recommendations. The COI/promo/vanity overtones are also concerning. Firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment. The behaviour of the article's creator (in repeatedly blanking this AfD discussion and disruption elsewhere on the project) is also a concern. Guliolopez (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article created in conflict of interest that fails our notability requirements. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Therese Kamph[edit]

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

A successful high school principal. Clearly important to the school. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admirable 19 century high school principal, but sources are inadequate to show notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I read the sources differently. I see notability per WP:GNG. But more input needed in this discussion.BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I also realise that the article needs work if kept.BabbaQ (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have had a quick look at the swedish wp article (here), unfortunately it doesnt have much to add. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously an important person in the development of education for women in Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why obviously? The sources are tiny. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, based on the improvements to the article since it was nominated, mainly by RebeccaGreen. Not sure obviously is the word I'd use, but notable enough to keep it. /Julle (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that would be based on exactly which WP policy? 1 nice article and 2 very short entries in sources meets exactly which notability criteria? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 05:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, While just writing from an IP-number, I hope it is still permissible for me to comment (excuse me for spelling mistakes: I am from Sweden). Therese Kamph is given her own biography in the source by Heckscher. This is not a small thing, because the source by Hecksher is the main reference work about the history of girl schools in Sweden (which of course is significant in the history of women's education in Sweden), and it was used as the source when the next major reference work by Gunhild Kyle:Svensk flickskola under 1800-talet ['Swedish Girl Schools during the 19th-century'), Göteborg, was written in the 1970s: prior to recent times, the history of girls schools has not been given much coverage in Sweden despite its importance, and given Sweden is a small country, it is perhaps not strange that even significant individuals from its history is not given coverage in international reference works (isn't that the wonderful thing about Wikipedia? To introduce such notable, but yet neclected, people?). Therese Kamph played a major role in the development of the Kjellbergska flickskolan: this school is counted as one of the "first five" pioneer secondary educational schools for women in Sweden, and to have played such an important role in the development of such an institution should be of some importance - for example, she started a training program for teachers within it, which would be the first one outside of Stockholm. For similar reasons, I also feel it strance that the article of her predecessor Helena Eldrup was deleted with no prior discussion; granted, the main source for her article was the jubilee book of the school, but as the founder and organiser of one of the first five pioneer secondary educational schools for women in Sweden, I thought she was notable, even if she would of course, being an individual from the history of a small country, not be expected to be mentioned in international sources.

I understand if my comment is left without regard, as I write from an IP, but I felt I should at least write this down here anywhay. Thank you.--92.35.227.48 (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Helena Eldrup, Kamph's predecessor as principal of Kjellbergska flickskolan, nominated for deletion on 2 April, where similar considerations will apply.TSventon (talk) 15:41, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday (Infected Mushroom and Berry Sakharof EP)[edit]

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

No sources provided, and a quick Google search does not bring up any coverage. Fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find coverage other than mirrors of the article and user-generated content. I was going to suggest merge, but the EP is already mentioned on both Infected Mushroom and Berry Sakharof. Schazjmd (talk) 22:03, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Launcher[edit]

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

Looks like the page creator has removed the PROD and notability tags when marked since it was created last year. No notability established, fails WP:GNG, and borderline advertising. – The Grid (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage but adverts. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. No content that implies notability. Even the references are promotional; it falls under WP:G11. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hold. No ads, only information on mobile app. Peter39c (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Peter39c (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [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 G11. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Odele[edit]

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

Spammy WP:AUTOBIOG which has been repeatedly moved to draft space with virtually no improvement. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC, which is really the only claim here. Praxidicae (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most likely COI page created by User:Judodele. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this needed mentioning here since it was clear from my nom that was the case? Praxidicae (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & salt self-promotional autobiography - we don't need another honeypot for sockpuppets. Cabayi (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – A7 and G11. Author is only here to promote himself on Wikipedia. Bradv🍁 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Sounding System[edit]

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

Previously declined for PROD. Unsourced, obscure and speculative. Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference it has is a dead link, and the description given sounds extremely speculative at best. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information appears to be speculative and very obsolete, with no independent reliable sources or references. Aldebarium (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fixed the broken ref link. It states that the project was announced in Aug. 2003 and canceled in 2003. There is a brief (paragraph) mention here. A failed startup product that does not seem to have received much attention before it even got off the ground. Non-notable & too few passing mentions. --mikeu ^talk 18:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a speculative proposal, at best. Nothing to suggest it could pass GNG. Eagleash (talk) 12:33, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica White[edit]

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

Appointed municipal department head for New Orleans so doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Most of her coverage appears to be related to a single controversy, so not entirely sure that White meets WP:GNG GPL93 (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the appointed head of a municipal service department is not an automatic inclusion freebie per WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get her over NPOL #2. The stuff that is actually reliable source media coverage is parked entirely on a single controversy, which just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who's passed the ten-year test for enduring significance, and virtually everything outside that controversy itself is citing blogs and primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete department heads at the city level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Highlands Water[edit]

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

I prodded this unreferenced stub article with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by its creator User:Billinghurst with the following rationale "t is as notable as the other water authorities, it meets the criteria for inclusion". Sigh. Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't even meet our criteria for rationals in deletion, but a deprod means we get to discuss it here. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam ("it exists!" Nope, sorry, that's not enough). Coverage of the company is limited to few mentions in passing, and one or two reports of minors scandals/fines in local press (The Courier (Ballarat)). That's not enough to meet cited notability guidelines. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am a bit in two minds on this one. Yes, it does not make the GNG line in my view, but no, it is part of series of articles as per the navigation box {{WaterVictoria}} so perhaps it should be there for consistency. On the other hand, there are a few other smaller water authorites in the same group as this one in the navigation box which are equally not notable in their own right, so perhaps the better option is to merge all the weaker ones into one article and have redirects to them? They do definitely deserve some dueweight material somewhere. Aoziwe (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for ignoring the other commentary. This is a state government legislative-derived body set up under the Water Industry Act 1994 (under previous legislation, Central Highlands Region Water Corporation) and it is specifically mentioned in the Act. [Noting that the current water authority is a successor to previous bodies dating back to the 1860s [1] and so built one of the earliest reservoirs in Victoria [2].] It provides annual reports to the parliament of the State of Victoria and has a government appointed board. It has the regional responsibility for water supply (groundwater and waterways), sewerage, trade waste, and recycled water, the management of 1.25 billion dollars in assets, and the management of land assets. It was the lead in the provision of the larger pieces of water piping infrastructure in Victoria[3]. You cannot deny that it has notability, though you are disputing that it has encyclopaedic notability. So please don't try your Yellow-Pages approach, it just displays your lack of research of the topic matter, and that we don't have enough people who like to write about such article topics.

It would also appear that you are cherry-picking one article and not making the comparison on like articles of water authorities/companies either for the state of Victoria, or for other water companies of the world, see Category:Water companies by country. It will be interesting time as you look through the other articles about water authorities and make true comparison on their referenced materials. I would reflect that the criteria as set out doesn't well represent how water companies/authorities or other have notability. So if you think that this organisation itself is not notable, I believe that this should be collectively managed against the remainder, not in isolation.

Water management in dry continents like Australia are a significant component of infrastructure management, water management, waterway health, and waste management. Though maybe for those in affluent global north countries with water abounding that goes suitably unnoticed or not understood. Whilst these may not meet the current trend of notability of individual insignificant sport stars, insignificant football clubs, or minor characters in a television series, they are truly significant and notable for what they do. By your approach the water authority would only be notable if it is involved in a large sex scandal, financial scandal, major water pollution, or significant fish kills. What an interesting way to design an encyclopaedia to not be able to understand the water and catchment management of Victoria. Do we plan to pick off the catchment management authorities next which work hand in glove with the water authorities?

Google news search shows over 300 news mentions of the water authority in media, predominantly this is coincident with the regional media that covers that region, or can . There is coverage in the capital city dailies [4] though it is unusual for such mentions compared to the water authorities of the capitals.

And NO, I still have no particular interest in writing the article. And I didn't know that it was that necessary to sing and dance to rebut a "prod" where the article stub has been here 6 years and the prod was pretty unresearched and uninformed. [P.S. You can take your damn "sigh" and stick it with your pomposity. That you wrote an unreferenced op-ed article for Signpost which was simply your opinion, nothing more, is not relevant here. Please climb off your self-mounted horse. We all do our work around here.] — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Let's not talk about high horses, because we might as well talk about editors who ignore WP:NORG and create spam articles making other editors waste time at AfD, right? So let's focus on the arguments, not on editors. Now, regarding your arguments. 1) There is no special provision that organization connection to the state, or the size of its assets or budgets, is sufficient for notability. (It could actually be a good idea to start a discussion at NORG about this, as far as I can tell, technically even top level government organisations like ministries are not auto-notable, through TBH I've always thought they were). 2) And that other water authorities have some articles, some of them also pretty bad, is plain WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ex. City West Water looks as bad as the article we are discussing right now, and I have time and will I'll see about future noms, assuming no better arguments suggesting inherent notability of such organizations are presented 3) If you think there is sufficient media coverage to make this org pass presence, please cite such sources, not just the fact that 'if you search for it on google or such, we get hits'. Such hits fall under passing mention, and until otherwise proven, they do not help to satisfy WP:GNG requirement for significant in-depth coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many passing mentions, but nothing to meet GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 09:53, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MIAA Division IA Baseball Championships recent history[edit]

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

Not remotely notable and seems like much of the same information as MIAA Division IA Baseball Championship Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Baseball Series[edit]

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

Just another high school showcase event, not notable. Cubbie15fan (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cubbie15fan (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cork on Sunday[edit]

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

Unsourced, and tagged for notability, since creation in December 2010. The title is a real bad search term but I have not found any in-depth coverage in RS. Short lived newspaper that has not attained any notability. Fails WP:Notability (periodicals). Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and other guidelines. In terms of the company, "Cork On Sunday Ltd" was wound-up some time ago, only seems to have existed as a going-concern for a short time, and would appear to fall some way short of the criteria for companies. In terms of the newspaper that the company produced, while we don't have specific guidelines for newspapers, the GNG would seem to expect that the subject would have left at least some verifiable or notable legacy or trail. And, as with the nominator, I'm not able to find any. Hence not meeting WP:LASTING. This article seems to be of limited value anyway. So would support a delete. Guliolopez (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk)
Delete - Search yields no results which can be called WP:RS QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sources, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 18:58, 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choodiyan (TV series)[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG––currently the article is supported by an article in The Hindu [5] and another from The Hindu Businessline [6]. The former is a routine announcement of Sony Entertainment Television's then-new show lineup, the latter gives three sentences of coverage in an article giving an overview of various then-currently running TV shows. I was unable to find additional sources online, but may have missed something due to language barriers.

Previously nominated via PROD by User:Lord Bolingbroke, dePROD by User:Najam us Saqib who said The show is very old so limited online sources are available for it. The sources which are added i think are enough and there is no need to propose the page for deletion since the show is very much popular and needed to be their on wekipedia for the the people who are following. However, I would disagree with the assertion that the currently provided sources demonstrate notability, as they contain rather trivial and routine coverage. If the show is truly very popular, then there should be more sources that could be provided, and the fact that the show only ran for one year is not a great sign. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROD nominator and per the explanation given by Rosguill. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill I have added some references,if finds more will add them.The show is also available on IMDb which depicts its notability.And about runtime its a finite show.So i think there is no need to propose the article for deletion,it deserves to be on Wikipedia. _signed,Najam us Saqib ^talk 17:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think the sources you've added contribute to notability, as they appear to be an excerpt from the show and a blog post, (not reliable, see WP:BLOGS). Furthermore, IMDb is not a reliable source as it is crowdsourced, and it actually has earned a spot as an unreliable source on the perennial reliable sources list. What I would like to see would be magazine or newspaper articles reviewing the show or discussing at length. For more information on notability guidelines, see WP:N, and for information on reliable sources, see WP:RS. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill Cited reference which reviews the show and news articles about the show are already cited in 1st two references.More newspaper references will be difficult to find because of the age of the show, mostly newspapers have deleted it from their database and showing error loading the page.Hope u understand, and i would once again say that i think cited references are enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najam us Saqib (talk • contribs) 08:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As Rosguill mentions above, the first two sources do not provide significant coverage of the show—both are routine coverage that only mention the show in passing. The reviews website that you've added is a self-published source with user generated content, so it also cannot establish the show's notability. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:TVSERIES for having aired on national television station. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Dunbar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Simply just a civic minded individual in Alexandria, LA. The sources used are all either obituaries except for records that prove that the bank that worked at did, in fact exist. GPL93 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, nothing notable here. WP is not a clearinghouse for obituaries of anyone with a pretty CV. Reywas92^Talk 06:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and yet another non-notable Louisianan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 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 keep. Looking at the difference between when the article was nominated and now, it appears that, even if it wasn't necessarily worth saving, it has been. Given the WP:HEY improvement of the article, as well as the lack of support for deletion, I'm closing this as keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Building a Better Legal Profession[edit]

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

This group appears to be defunct. The article is a poorly sourced promotional mess and given that the group doesn't seem to exist anymore, it doesn't seem worth saving. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV here. Marquardtika (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: I am seeing a reasonable number of hits in Google Books. I am wondering if this can't be merged and redirected somewhere. bd2412 T 12:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: I have tidyied up the refs and added some new ones; I think there is enough now to Keep this per WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group may no longer exist but it was notable in its time with WP:SIGCOV in the NYT [7], and Los Angeles Times (see article), and WSJ [8], and CBS [9], heavy referencing in the Stanford Law Review [10] (and other journals). I'm continuing to add more references, but at least technically passes WP:GNG. No need to delete. Britishfinance (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the LA Times also did two articles on them ("Lack of diversity marks L.A. law - latimes" 11 October 2007 by Henry Weinstein; "Law students make appeal for change - latimes" 18 March 2008 by Molly Selvin) but I just can't get behind the URL to them (seems to be part of the LA Times archives and not available to readers in Europe like me). Britishfinance (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:HEY by @Britishfinance: sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability and quality improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uno (software)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, all coverage appears to be in Medium posts. Searching for sources was difficult because there's a lot of other things called either "Uno" or "Uno Platform", including an Arduino platform. Does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are two paragraphs of coverage in [11] but that is not likely to be enough (niche pub and hardly in-depth). Ping if more in-depth and reliable reviews are found and I can reconsider this vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that there are more than two paragraphs of coverage in the above mentioned source. Please check more closely. There are two paragraphs in another cited source [12]. Obviously (and very unfortunately), nobody have taken some time to perform a more extensive search. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those sources include fairly significant coverage of the subject. However, I don't see any indication that those are reliable sources, as they're posts on Medium. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you have mentioned above, search for sources is a bit difficult because of the unfortunate choice of the name that is used for may other things. I would wish an article like this could attract enough editors to push it to a higher level (regarding references as well as content), but I have a feeling this is becoming increasingly more difficult for articles related to software and technology in general. I would also remark that in this area, what is not consumer faced is hard to get broad coverage in traditional media, and coverage in community portals and blogs should be considered as well. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 22:39, 13 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? 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT; significant RS coverage not found. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable as cross-platform GUI framework for .NET (similar role as AWT in Java world, but .NET took rather different paths in GUI development that Java). Secondary sources exist, search is a bit difficult due to framework's name that interferes with many other things. As many other articles related to software development, this one also suffers for lack of community involvement and critical mass of editors knowledgeable in the subject. Considering also this section of WP:NSOFT and the nature of the subject (not a popular topic; dynamic and evolving field), I think there is a strong case for trying to improve the coverage of related topics rather than to impoverish it. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

kEEP and give time! The page need a change to grow and expanse before you try to kill itﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Theodore-Edevu[edit]

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

After many years since its inception by a sock-using account I finally decided to put this article for deletion. It fails WP:ENT, since none of the three notability indicators of ENT are satisfied. The sources used in the article are low-quality and they do not demonstrate any lasting notability of contributions for the subject. The self-promoting article was created by now blocked account MrEditor88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), probably the subject of the article himself. The self-promotion included edits such as creating lists of famous Cypriots just to include himself on the list. Just see this version. Similar edits were made to List of Cypriots and List of Nigerians where he actually edit-warred to add himself: List of Nigerians 1 and List of Nigerians 2. The blocked account edit-warred to remove maintenance tags to the self-bio and caused other disruption. Just see their talkpage history. His draft submission was declined, and he also worked in the sandbox of the named, perhaps meat account johntheodoreedevu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Also, several of the dubious sources contain self-promoting interviews with the subject himself. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrEditor88/Archive. Dr. K. 09:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promoting nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG. The references in the article are not reliable. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:54, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Stojan[edit]

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

Unclear that he meets WP:NAUTHOR based on a lack of reliable, independent sources. There are none on Bulgarian WP either, and I'm not seeing many hits on his Bulgarian name except WP mirrors/user-created sites either. Note comments on the article talk page from 2005 suggesting that this is a vanity page, although I can't substantiate that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Munroe[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a musician whose claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. He does not get an instant free pass over NMUSIC #5 just because the article has the phrase "Universal Motown" in it, for example -- he was signed to a minor indie label that uses Universal Motown's distribution infrastructure, not to the major label itself. And at any rate, the inclusion test at NMUSIC is not just what the article says, but how well the article references what it says -- musicians are prone to making inflated self-promotional claims about themselves that aren't actually accurate, so the notability test hinges on the ability to independently verify that their notability claims are true. But the three footnotes here are all primary sources -- two of his self-created profiles on music streaming services and a video clip of him performing -- which are not support for notability, and I can't find anything better on Google or in ProQuest either: I get the odd glancing namecheck of his existence in coverage of other people, and I get a lot of irrelevant stuff about other people who merely happen to have the same name, but I can find literally nothing that's about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Jee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is well known as a recurring character on Letterman, and now apparently has made at least one appearance on the replacement show --rogerd (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear failure of WP:BEFORE, easy pass of WP:GNG. Examples of coverage include "Odd path to success isn't spoiling Rupert Jee" by Steve Hall, Indianapolis Star, 21 July 1997, p E1, and "Thanks to David Letterman, Rupert Jee a famous deli guy" by Marie-Joelle Parent, The Intelligencer (Ontario), 5 February 2009, p. 8; and "A grin that has Letterman coming back for more", The Salt Lake Tribune, 3 March 2007 edition; and "Behind the sandwich: An odd sort of fame hasn't changed Dave's deli-owning pal, Rupert Jee" by Robert Cross, Orlando Sentinel, 18 February 2007, p K5; and "Neighborhood Watch: Thanks to Dave Letterman's out-and-about camera spoofs, the shops around Broadway and 53rd in New York have newfound celebrity -- and humor" by Chris Kaltenbach, The Sun (Baltimore, not that other Sun), 5 October 2000, p 1E. I'll stop there for now. Reliable sources across the USA have provided significant coverage of the subject for years. Bakazaka (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article had no references, but there is enough coverage from reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines. I am adding references to the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:27, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Sharma[edit]

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

Non notable advertising,.None of these references are independent--they're the founder of the company talking about it. And see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daisy Tanwani. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Middleton[edit]

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

Person fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:BIO. Reality show contestants generally aren't notable for being on a reality show unless they win (depending on the show) or have achieved notability from something else. PROD was attempted by another user but removed by article creator. Only source is a personal website. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I adore The Great British Bake Off, but just being a contestant isn't sufficient for notability. Schazjmd (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not every baker who appeared on a reality show is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George E. Hearn[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Hearn never held an office higher than the Pineville, LA (Population: 13,000) city council. Additionally the sourcing for the article doesn't do anything to establish notability. They are 1) a link to the main page of Ancestry.com but it appears that even if properly linked it was simply to Hearn's federal death records; 2) a Google Maps search for a church; 3 & 9) his obituaries in local newspapers, only one of which is linked and which are the only sources that appear in any form of media, and 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10) election returns. GPL93 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would question whether being "professor and chair of the Psychology Department" at Louisiana College [13] passes NPROF(5). Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that, but I'm not sure Louisiana College (enrollment: 1,265) would qualify as a "major institution". Additionally the School of Behavioral Sciences, under which the Psychology Department is housed, only has 8 faculty members as a whole. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete department chairs do not pass notability guidelines for such, although many are notable for contributions to their fied, but Hearn is not. Even academic deans are not default notable, but department chairs not at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPOL and NPROF, sourcing only to an obit is inadequate. Reywas92^Talk 06:05, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leading Women for Shared Parenting[edit]

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

1. Advocacy, not encyclopedic information 2. No substantial independent third party sources: Time is an uncritical interview with the President where she says whatever she cares to, Everything else is straight-forward advocacy by a member or officer of the association, Relatively subtle--most merely mention the organization at the end. Not all of them are what we'd call RS in any event, e.g. Daily caller. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG's statements; the majority of what I found were op-eds in various media - both reliable sources as well as blogs - by Molly Olson and/or Terry Brennan, who are co-founders of the organization, or other members such as Suzanne Venker or Lori Barkus. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:04, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Woolf[edit]

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

Company not significant enough to be on Wikipedia Piousious (talk) 16:03, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any coverage (except a Daily Mirror article about a disgruntled customer). Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Schazjmd (talk) 23:01, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton McGee[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article contains maybe one source that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE (247 Sports), the other are the routine coverage any college player gets (roster page, Perfect Game page). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete considering that college baseball is not the main feeder method to the majors, it is an even smaller time sport than college football and basketball.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has very little notability even among avid baseball fans like myself. Fails WP:GNG. Songwaters (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This player has won many college baseball awards and is player is well known in the state North Carolina and to ACC baseball fans in general. There are many things written about Ashton McGee from good reliable sources so the is should be kept. Thanks UNC2 (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability standard. It's also written like a season preview article which doesn't help its case either. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:46, 28 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March to Leave[edit]

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

May not meet the requirements of WP:GNG B dash (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: easily passes WP:GNG, as multiple reliable, independent, mainstream reliable sources for this article can easily be found via a Google news search for '"march to leave" 2019': see, for example, [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]... Searching for '"march for brexit" 2019' finds still more. -- The Anome (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUSTAINED and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and merge into a subsection of Aftermath_of_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#Post-referendum_campaigning. I'd be open to an independent article if this march is still being discussed in a few months, but as of now it appears to have not even ended yet. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's supposed to arrive in London tomorrow (and they'd better get a move on to achieve that!) so deletion because it hasn't ended, particularly when it's due to end before this AfD process finishes, seems rather premature to me. We should see even more coverage of it then, particularly regarding numerical comparisons with the somewhere-between-300,000-and-1-million-strong People's Vote March. -- The Anome (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that it should be deleted because the march isn't over, but because it's not clear that anyone will care about it after it's been over for a short time (like a couple of months). The key thing to establish notability will be that future coverage. BTW, I agree with the merge proposal in 2019 People's Vote March, I think it has the same issues. IMHO, these are smaller pieces of a larger notable article. - GretLomborg (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG as there is adequate independent coverage which can be seen by clicking the links alongside the "Find sources" prompt in the header to this discussion. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as this meets WP:GNG and is covered by multiple sources. Whether in the long term we merge this with something else (for example the march's organisers) or leave it as a standalone article is something we may need to think about in a few months from now. I don't think this has had the same amount of coverage as the 2019 People's Vote March, nor did it even have a comparable number of attendees. This is Paul (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that there has been ongoing coverage for over a fortnight now (top two on a quick search are FT and Reaction), suggests at least a reasonable case for sustained. There may well be a case for merging this, but I don't think that the merge is needed to retain the article - it should be kept, and then a suitable merge discussion raised then. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:00, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Garden (upcoming film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Sheldybett (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article satisfies the stipulation in WP:NFF that it must have begun/completed filming before being in mainspace. Film has acquired distribution too so to say TOOSOON is incorrect. Rusted AutoParts 11:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask that if any editors may feel it is too early to be in mainspace to vote to put it into draftspace. I don’t think this article should be deleted outright and wish the nominator considered this before launching a deletion discussion. Rusted AutoParts 11:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Deadline articles don't help much, but there is additional coverage in better publications. Also, it has Colin Firth in it, so editors are liable to try reposting the page every few weeks. We can only waylay the inevitable for so long. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kay, Jeremy (March 25, 2019). "Colin Firth, Julie Walters family adventure 'The Secret Garden' finds new US home". www.screendaily.com. ScreenDaily. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Tang, Estelle (May 14, 2018). "There's Going to Be a 'The Secret Garden' Movie and Colin Firth Is in It". www.elle.com. Elle. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Roxborough, Scott (May 12, 2018). "Cannes: Global Road Buys 'The Secret Garden' for North America". www.hollywoodreporter.com. Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Clarke, Stewart (April 27, 2018). "Colin Firth and Julie Walters Join David Heyman-Produced 'The Secret Garden'". Variety. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Williams, Trey (March 25, 2019). "Colin Firth-Led Children's Classic 'The Secret Garden' Acquired by STXFilms". www.sfgate.com. SFGate (The Wrap. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Newton, Grace (March 4, 2019). "The Secret Garden: The Yorkshire locations that appear in new Colin Firth and Julie Walters film". www.yorkshirepost.co.uk. Yorkshire Post. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Southern, Keiran (April 27, 2018). "Colin Firth and Dame Julie Walters to star in The Secret Garden". www.independent.ie. The Independent (Press Association). Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Colin Firth and Dame Julie Walters to star in The Secret Garden". www.irishexaminer.com. Irish Examiner. April 27, 2018. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Allen, Ben (April 27, 2018). "Colin Firth and Julie Walters to star in classic children's adaptation The Secret Garden". www.radiotimes.com. Radio Times. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Ritman, Alex (April 27, 2018). "Colin Firth, Julie Walters Join 'The Secret Garden'". www.hollywoodreporter.com. Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Galuppo, Mia (March 25, 2019). "STX Nabs Colin Firth-Starring 'The Secret Garden' for North America". www.hollywoodreporter.com. Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Colin Firth Secret Garden Bought by STX". www.variety.com www.variety.com. Variety. March 25, 2019. Retrieved March 26, 2019. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Keep per WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles," (and filming has begun and is completed) and WP:GNG since reliable sources are writing directly (not just significantly) about this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of good reliable sources, and principal photography has begun. Moreover, passes NFF, with sources demonstrating the film's notability. Cindlevet (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:NFF, filming has appeared to have been completed and a distributor has been found. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - filming has began, per WP:NFF. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:53, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Springbrook Prairie Pavilion[edit]

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

Simply does not pass WP:GNG, nothing but WP:ROUTINE coverage. Simply WP:MILL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, one of several articles for non-notable shopping malls made by the same (now-banned) editor. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 26 stores does not make a mall notable on its own. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neelesh Malviya[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, unsourced article on an actor where I can't find good independent references covering him in depth. Instagram, youtube, ... but nothing reliable. Fram (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS anywhere, even in non English media. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Creater also admits this is their relative [20]. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:48, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Krishnan[edit]

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

Promotional article, apparently created by editor at request of actress, for promotional purposes ("so her page can be searched in google"). Actress simply does not have enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete as does not pass WP:NACTOR with very minor roles. It is concerning that her name has only today been plonked at the bottom of the recurring cast lists in the tv series and film articles linked in this article where she was not mentioned at all until today, so perhaps those entries should be removed as questionable in terms of undue weight at least Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:NACTOR , no WP:RS, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:18, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. The news coverage was slow and there were initially only routine reactions and unnamed sources, but I'm seeing evidence of significance now [21]. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 22:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proclamation on Recognizing the Golan Heights as Part of the State of Israel[edit]

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

Redirect this 200-word stub to Golan Heights#United States government's stance on the territorial dispute. Almost all of it is already mentioned there, and a sub-section can be created there if this gains significant continued coverage. An article is not justified as there is little in-depth coverage, no lengthy proceedings or actions or protests, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. wumbolo ^^^ 10:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep. This has at least 2 months of coverage pre-dating the announcement (e.g. this from 28 Jan - and a bunch more in Hebrew and English - a bit hard to find now with the current news swamping the sidebar with fake results - but was obvious enough for me to make this comment on 13 March [22]). The Golan Heights article is not the place for extended content on US announcements - long term it should collapse there to a one liner. Even a very cloudy crystal ball shows this will have continuing future coverage. I'm not sure I need to invoke WP:RAPID here (given the pre-dating speculative coverage on this), but it does apply regarding future continuing coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The issue is a decision over a mtter that has been a controversy for over 50 years, and by itself is subject to international controversy. --Midrashah (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a stub for now because the topic is new, but it will unquestionably continue to attract controversy and the article will build content over the coming months and years. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. One of the biggest developments in the dispute for the Golan Heights since 1967. Nice4What (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This topic is extremely important, and it deserves to have its own article, in the same way as United States recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel. Although stub for now, I am sure it will be expanded over time, and possibly very soon as events develop. --Sundostund (talk) 13:29, 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. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Marzilli[edit]

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

Coverage is simply routine, was a redirect to Chicago Cubs minor leaguers, but was just released, in which case the redirect shouldn't be "promoted" to an article. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The minor league transaction page is routine. These are not: [23][24][25][26][27][28] Subject passes WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with substantial coverage in such sources as The Post and Courier Marzilli passes the WP:GNG. Zingarese talk · contribs 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Muboshgu's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cillian Lordan[edit]

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

He fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – "'This is f**king embarrassing. We're setting a new low' is the title of a published excerpt of a book called Second City by Neal Horgan about Cork City F.C.'s 2009 season (part one was about the 2008 season). Cillian Lordan ("Lordy") is mentioned in the excerpt, but I don't have the book. This could be significant coverage? Horgan is a former Cork City player, but also a sportswriter for the Irish Examiner, so I'm not sure if this would be independent or not. I also found Lordan was interviewed a couple of times on the radio [29] [30] and other brief mentions in the Irish Examiner [31] [32]. Leviv ich 00:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your two links there at the end are both the same...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops! Thanks for the heads up. Fixed. Leviv ich 21:47, 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. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonal Monteiro[edit]

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

there seems to be at most one significant role (in Panchatantra),which is not enough for notability . The interviews in the Times ofIndia are PR fluff. We should not be fooled by the name of the publication DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article already includes several press articles as sources and many more can be found if you search for recent news.--Ipigott (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. Dismissing sources as PR fluff is highly subjective and would, if applied to biographies across this sector, pointlessly remove thousands of articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The sources are PR fluff, not substantial reliable sources, as is common in the industry. It is perfectly true that theis might mean the deletion of several huundred articles, unless there can be some objective evidence. We have been much too indicriminate in this general area, and that we have been so lax, is good reason why we should be so no longer. DGG ( talk ) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination, QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage exists to establish notability: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Some of these are brief but they confirm multiple starring roles. --Michig (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Meets WP:NACTOR. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:NACTOR. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Françoise Moréchand[edit]

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

Non-notable manager/fashionista; Google News returns jack and shit, and Jack's on vacation (string: "Francoise Morechand"), and the main source this article relies on has been blatantly plagiarised from three times; the only other source is a noted press release. I'm not seeing anything, sourcing-wise, to satisfy notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 01:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't convince me; I noticed this because I cleaned up after the last copyvio. At first glance this seems to be another case of the difficulty of completing WP:BEFORE if not versed in the language. In this case most sources would be expected to appear in Japanese with the search string "フランソワーズ・モレシャン", not to mention that most of the appearances that made the subject notable predated the internet, which makes it harder to access them. And others are in French, such as references to her book 1990s La gaïjine. However, note possible sources like this or this guest appearance on Tetsuko no heya or this reference to her as Foreign Trade Consultant to the French Government and International Advisor to the Kanazawa 21st Century Art Museum, and I'm not sure why the Japan Times article is being discounted. We don't punish article subjects because some editor chose to add copyvios to preexisting articles. Dekimasuよ! 02:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what does come up when you do use that string? If the sources under it are decent, I'm more than happy to rescind the AfD, but at present there isn't much, and I don't trust automated translations for South or East Asian languages. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 02:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, I'm not discounting the Japan Times article, but it's the only good source I am aware of at the moment. The latter source is a name-drop at best (I think), but I am not in any position to assess the other two sources, not being able to read/speak Japanese. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 03:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I asked about this article at WT:JAPAN#Françoise Moréchand and WT:WOMEN#Françoise Moréchand prior to it being AfD'd. I felt that the article had some significant issues, particularly with respect to content recently added by a recent good-faith edit spurt by Ukunsumo and added some maintainence templates to reflect these concerns. I didn't dig deep enough, however, to notice the copyvios which were subsequently revdeleted. My original assessment is that Moréchand is probably notable per WP:BIO, WP:NTEMP and WP:NEXIST, but finding sources to support a claim of notability may be a bit difficult for the reasons given by Dekimasu above.
I also feel that while there's nothing wrong trying to improve an article being discussed at AfD in good-faith, it seems recent edits by Ukunsumo re-adding of unsourced content and various MOS:MOS errors is not really helping things out and actually moving the article in the wrong direction. Creating more things to clean up and may actually make it easier for others to see deletion as the only real alternative here. In my opinion, we should be doing the opposite and trimming out as much unsourced content as possible and cleaning up the layout/formatting as best as we can to make the article at least seem viable as a stub. Content can always be added (re-added) when reliable sources are found which can be cited in support. I am well aware of WP:ARTN and WP:OVERCOME; so, I'm not suggesting that making things all nice and pretty will be sufficient for keeping the article. At the same time, there's also no need to make the article worse (even if done unintentionally and in good faith). -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep: I know nothing about her, but I have lived in Japan a long time, so I have heard of her. In any ordinary sense of the word I would think this confers "notability". Imaginatorium (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a specific definition of the term. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 19:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)RR[reply]

Keep: I've added some content with citation to the French Embassy in Tokyo, as well as two of her more famous books and an external link to a tribute. The article still needs some attention to too-closely paraphrased text, as well as citations, but the subject meets WP:GNG. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Wainwright[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:NACTOR or GNG. References 2-4 are mere mentions, and I'm not sure how reliable TV.com is. (In full disclosure, I created this article when I was a wee baby editor. I do not believe WP:G7 applies, as multiple other editors have edited it besides me. Reviewing it now, I don't think it measures up to WP's standards.) Kbabej (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tv.com is a Great Value version of IMDB. Trillfendi (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find support references, only an interview. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Develop the article Lubbad85 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Tudors, for now. Trillfendi (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Liberal Catholic movement#Young Rite. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Rite[edit]

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

Can only find one reference to this in non-self-published reliable sources–David V. Barrett (26 May 2011). A Brief Guide to Secret Religions: A Complete Guide to Hermetic, Pagan and Esoteric Beliefs. Little, Brown Book Group. p. 7. ISBN 978-1-84901-811-1. ("A further small offshoot known as the Young Rite was founded in 2006."). A single sentence isn't significant coverage. Google Books find a few books discussing this organisation in detail, but they all appear to be self-published via Lulu.com, and in some cases the authors appear to have leadership roles in this organisation. Another minuscule splinter group of Liberal Catholicism (which is a small religious movement to begin with), to which independent reliable sources have paid hardly any attention. SJK (talk) 07:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 07:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book "Strange Vocation" appears to be from an independent publisher; however, it isn't independent coverage, since it is a volume of essays by leaders of Liberal Catholic denominations, and the essay on the Young Rite was contributed by one of its bishops. SJK (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Liberal_Catholic_movement#Young_Rite to solve the notability problem.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will go along with merge -- This seems to be about a denomination, but a splinter of a splinter, which must be miniscule. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron:There is only one independent reliable source here, which only has a single sentence in it on this topic. So, if we merge, there is almost no content to keep in the merge. All we could say, without going beyond independent reliable sources, is that this group exists, it was founded in 2006, that it is "small", and that it split from the Liberal Catholic Church. Now, if that's all you mean by "merge"–add a one sentence mention to another existing article–I support that. But, if by merge you mean copying the extensive content on this page into some other page, I don't think that would be a policy-compliant solution. SJK (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with such a brief merge (which will leave a redirect). I am not fundamentally opposed to deletion, but think merger the better outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Khandal[edit]

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

apparently trivial roles. Any bio of a performer which needs to emphasise the television advertisements for detergents is a tacit admission of non-notability.The purported awards seems to have no correlation with the actual achievements. The conclusion is that this is essentially promotional , with no substance for an acceptable article. DGG ( talk ) 07:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - GretLomborg (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Morrison[edit]

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

The subject does not pass WP:NACTOR or GNG. The lack of sources and a WP:BEFORE search indicate this. (In full disclosure, I created this article when I was a wee baby WP editor. I do not believe WP:G7 would work in this instance, however, as a number of other editors have edited it since creation.) Kbabej (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of coverage online, and per nom. MidwestSalamander (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 01:11, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Evans (Businessman)[edit]

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

Not seeing notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is nothing which conveys notability for a stand alone article; which is also uncited. Kierzek (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion as a contested WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Timbaland or Delete While I found this (not enough for GNG) and this, I don't think this person is independantly notable. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP. CoolSkittle (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, practically G11. No indication of actual notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seyn[edit]

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

Possibly too soon for an article on this singer. Of the two sources currently in the article, only the "Incredible Record" source is working and that is merely a promotional announcement about the release of a video. I also found this: [43], which is also a short promo announcement. Those sources are in the Chichewa language but can be read via Google Translate. I can find nothing else beyond the usual self-created social media and retail/streaming sites, so there is little evidence that he has passed the requirements at WP:NSINGER. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as like the nom, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find anything of substance to improve this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per g5. Sock of a globally locked sockmaster (Ivan250igan) creating content against the WP:TOU. Also not-notable, which is pretty much the norm for a paid vanity spammer.Praxidicae (talk) 17:28, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UberConference[edit]

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

Borderline notability at best and clear promotionalism . Started and almost entirely edited by coi or undeclared paid editor., just like Switch. They're too old for checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Switch.co[edit]

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

borderline notability and very clear promotionalism--edited almost entirely by apparent undeclared paid editors. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 05:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Movie[edit]

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

Non-notable cable film. The only source is to a self-published blogger's review, and there doesn't seem to be anything else online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not seem to have any significant independent coverage in reliable sources, at imdb external reviews there are no rs links and at rotten tomatoes the given link in the article is a 404 and a search of the site gives no results Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Sweeney[edit]

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

Can't find any sources for this person to pass WP:NACTRESS or WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to be a particularly notable actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another old article that didn't make it pass WP:NACTRESS talk less of WP:GNG. I have seen a couple passing mention and a press release but nothing significant. Meanwhile nominator should do well to check the criteria of which he used as reason for nomination as WP:NCORP doesn't apply to people. Lapablo (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lapablo, typo. I mean NACTOR --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If she works primarily in Japan, then there may be some Japanese-language sourcing I don't have the ability to find or read — so I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if somebody with Japanese language skills can show evidence that better sources about her actually exist. But actors aren't handed an automatic notability freebie just because the article lists roles, because every actor can always list roles by definition — the key to passing NACTOR #1 is not the list of roles itself, but the depth of reliable source media coverage she did or did not receive for having roles. And conversely, we also don't keep poorly sourced articles just because better sourcing might exist than anybody has actually been arsed to show — the key to saving a badly sourced article is to show hard evidence that better sourcing does exist to repair the problem with. So, again, if somebody can show that she has more coverage in Japanese-language sources than we can find in English, then I'll reconsider — but it will take showing that such sources do exist, not just idly speculating about the possibility that such sources might exist, to turn the tide. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the Actor criteria. Also, this was a bad relist. Pages with no votes and should be treated as expired PRODs and left for Admins to delete, and in this case there is a delete vote and it should be deleted by discussion. Ping User:The Grid please don't relist cases like this. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: My mistake, I'm sorry about that. – The Grid (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kumkum Bhagya. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twist of Fate (2016 TV series)[edit]

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

This is an article about the English-language dub of Kumkum Bhagya, a Hindi-language series. It contains basically the same content as in the main article and doesn't expand upon that content in any meaningful way. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge, and then convert to redirect (assuming there is any material to merge, which there may not be...), based on this discussion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I don't think there's anything worth merging. The main article is rather thorough. I don't see the real value in keeping a duplicate around, but won't contest a simple redirect. I just didn't want to encourage its restoration as sometimes happens in Indian entertainment articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as it's more or less a duplicate and already mentioned in the international broadcast section, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy Music[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Cannot find any proof it still exists either, so regardless of outcome of this proposal badly out of date. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there's more to this than I thought. I was thinking this is A7 eligible, but in fact the label has at least two notable artists, Cold War Kids and Adina Howard. 2 notable artists, in my opinion, isn't enough to make it one of the "more important independent labels" according to wp:NMUSIC #5. I found a few hits searching ""Monarchy Music" Costa Mesa", but they appear to be routine local announcements that don't help towards WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. It's actually three notable artists, 78.26, because Delta Spirit also put out their debut EP on Monarchy, but the key point is that none of these artists had any notable releases on the label. Both Delta Spirit and Cold War Kids released their first EPs on the label before signing with major labels – they weren't notable bands at the time these EPs came out. Adina Howard's association with the label appears to have been for just one song, "Switch", in 2013, and she was only signed with them for 18 months. None of the Monarchy releases by these artists charted at all. So the "notable artists" association for Monarchy is more a WP:INHERITED situation. Richard3120 (talk) 13:26, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Northrop[edit]

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

I randomly ran across this article a few days ago and while doing copy-editing, I do not believe that it meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. I could not find much in the way of sources and a majority of this actor's work is in very minor roles. This edit is also somewhat concerning as it was done by the user Realchrisnorthrop (who could be either Northrop himself or a part of his team as a way to promote him). The article itself was created by another user, Chrisnorthrop. Both things raise concerns about a conflict of interest. Thank you in advance for any comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unfortunately he does not meet WP:NACTOR at this point of his career as he has had only one marginally significant supporting role in nine episodes out of fifty one of The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, there is also the concern of self-promotion as it seems to be an autobio Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 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 redirect to United States Australian Football League. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South East Australian Football League[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find references (primary or secondary) that cover this topic in any detail. BLAIXX 18:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USAFL. Barely enough to demonstrate existence let alone notability. Also Atlanta Kookaburras and Baton Rouge Tigers should be redirected while we are at it too, to their respective new leagues. The other two blue links are already redirected to such. Aoziwe (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support all three redirects, as nom. BLAIXX 11:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:58, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer von Hassel[edit]

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

A classic example of an article built around WP:BLP1E. The subject is only notable for an event at age five; there's nothing before or after that event. (In full disclosure, I created this article as a wee baby WP editor. I do not believe this article is eligible for WP:G7, however, because of the many other editors who have added to it.) Kbabej (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 02:28, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the relevant bit here is in WP:BIO1E in the section on dealing with biographies of individuals who play a major role in a minor event. Which I believe we'd agree was the case here. This minor event derives its entire notability from the primary individual, not the actual event. As such: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved. I feel a Keep is therefore warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The kid is barely 11. This is definitely a Too Soon. Not much coverage from reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: - I don't think WP:TOOSOON can apply here - assuming we're talking about the biographical section, the various components are met. The sources in-article cover the individual in a sufficient level of information in some reliable sources including CNN, NYT, SMH and some others, so WP:RELIABLE seems covered. I can understand how a BLP1E case can be made, so that's what I countered in my !vote, but a pure notability argument doesn't hold up. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One aspect of your comment I didn't cover - the fact he's 11 is irrelevant - he might get more notable coverage when older (or not), but he reached the required level already. Nosebagbear (talk)

Keep I agree with Nosebagbear, subject clearly meets WP:BIO1E, the subject of the article IS the reason there was an event, and there's adequate coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Me to You & Only You[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, provided sources do not comprise significant coverage and appear to be unreliable sources to boot. I couldn't find anything better online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 12 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? 09:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album was critically reviewed by Platform, Zkhiphani and Unorthodox Reviews. I believe these three sources combined are enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Airways[edit]

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

a small charter airline without any regular passenger service. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. it seems there are possibilities for a merge. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 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 redirect to Full Metal Jacket#Cast. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Papillon Soo Soo[edit]

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

Classic case of WP:BLP1E. She's only known for a single line in a movie, which itself has been sampled in songs, does not make her notable.

She's had two other film roles. Although one was as a henchwoman in a Bond film, her character in the film isn't notable either, despite it being a bluelink. It just links to a list of Bond characters. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Full Metal Jacket. The mention of her name in the latter article could be elaborated upon with a "Popular Culture" section which discusses the "Me Love You Long Time" catchphrase being sampled in pop songs, etc. Muzilon (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A close call but just scrapes into WP:ENT. Role in a Bond film is notable, significant cult following for the FMJ role. Article needs expanding though. W C M_email 10:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the evidence that she, rather than the FMJ line itself, has a following? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Muzilon. Not notable, and not just scraping into anything. One event and a bit of resampling doesn't mean notability; a mention in a film article will be quite sufficient, and provides searchability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Full Metal Jacket per Muzilon and Chiswick Chap. It seems to be the best option to me as that is her most notable role and she is a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand Would normally be WP:BLP1E but I think her other major acting role makes this meet notability in WP:ENT Jessamyn (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Major acting role? She had one line in A View to a Kill. That barely a bit part. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above to Full Metal Jacket. I just don't see how the article could be expanded enough to really warrant her own article, not yet anyway. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being notable for saying "me love you long time, me sucky sucky" in broken English and having the fortune to say it during the rise of Acid House so it could be sampled extensively is still notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Although I disagree with your logic, your edit summary made me laugh. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing something involving Nadine Dorries and "me leave EU long time" but people would probably complain. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget as above. The lines have certainly been well noted for years, but the actor is not notable. That is, there are not multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. While I cannot access the final source in the article, none of the others appear to actually cover her; rather, they either mention her as being in something or are covering the phrase directly. I think there's a good chance the phrase could have an article, but I find no evidence she should. Likely some of the material here (namely, on the sampling) could be merged to Full Metal Jacket. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:38, 3 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 Washington Township, Morgan County, Indiana. Appears to be outside Martinsville city limits per Google Maps, so redirecting to the most sensible option. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willowbrook Estates, Indiana[edit]

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

Can't find evidence that this place actually exists. It's in the USGS database as a place name, but all search results are automatically generated. Prove me wrong but there is nothing establishing that this name is currently used or used in the past by local residents. Being listed in the database of place named does not mean there is notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Martinsville, Indiana. Having taken a virtual stroll down Willowbrook Drive at the designated coordinates on Google Maps, I find that it is merely a street with about a dozen houses. There is no signage indicating estates. The addresses of the nearest surrounding businesses on all sides are in Martinsville. bd2412 T 12:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly it's a failed subdivision judging from the lack of houses and distance from Martinsville; it will become even more so once the I-69 expansion creeping north from Bloomington towards Indianapolis cuts it off from the easy access it has now from Indiana 37. Nate • (chatter) 03:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Johnson (father of Andrew Johnson)[edit]

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

Taking to AFD since a prior PROD was contested. This guy fails WP:BIO as he wasn't noted for anything of his own merit (i.e. outside the family connection clearly mentioned within article title), and one cannot inherit notability simply from being related to a famous person, regardless of who that is. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. invalid nomination, as our criteria in WP:BIO is "or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in the lead, and per WP:BASIC - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.. The reason for the subject being recorded in history is irrelevant. It seems reliable sources take note of Presedential relations, for modern examples see - Mary Anne MacLeod Trump or Ann Dunham. As for our subject here, there is in-depth coverage in: here, here, here, [44]. I shall note that Jacob Johnson's death (who died when Andrew was 3) was notable as it occurred in heroic circumstances - saving the life of a colonel Thomas Henderson, editor of the Raleigh Star - who happened to report about this at the time in the Raleigh Star. Icewhiz (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was NOT an invalid nomination, and speedy keep is being rather hasty. While I admittedly stand corrected on not being noted for anything of his own merit given the drowning rescue, only the World History link you provided specifically focuses on Jacob himself, and it doesn't look like he received individual attention for anything else other than being a President's father. Biographies on his son don't exactly count towards notability on a parent. It's better to have sources dedicated to Jacob (like that one URL of yours I highlighted) as opposed to mentions in works on other people. To be fair, the only other accessible source I found prior to the AFD that actually was about the man himself was a genealogical entry simply listing birth, death, and family stats. That reference definitely isn't significant coverage. Seems like a case of WP:BIO1E, which says When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. If this is his only prominent merit independent of Andrew, then simply a brief mention within his son's article should be enough, and there's nothing of encyclopedic value on Jacob that isn't already included there (yes the drowning rescue is mentioned). We're not supposed to be a Presidential family history/memorial site; see the WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL sections of WP:What Wikipedia is not for further details. Unfortunately, Wikipedians are oftentimes overly lenient with maintaining articles on their relatives, though I won't delve into merits on other specific individuals now per WP:WAX as those aren't relevant to this discussion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This guy fails WP:BIO as he wasn't noted for anything of his own merit" IS a bad nom. An individual may be notable even if he has done nothing of merit - but got WP:SIGCOV for his non-meritous activities. Johnson's death is covered in several of the sources I provided above, as are his career and personal history. He passes GNG. Had he been just covered in geneagraphie you would have a point - but in this case he has over a page of content in at least a couple of books.Icewhiz (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are any viable sources (other than the linked World History page and that genealogy listing) specifically about Jacob, though, and not just part of something focused on his son or wife? Those would do a better job of establishing notability. If not and the only prominent aspect of his own life unrelated to family affiliations was that rescue, then it's best to just stick with a brief mention him, his rescuing, and death within Andrew's page per my previous comments on WP:BIO1E. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well beyond 1E as he is covered for his gallant death, his issue, and career as a tavern worker. "Jacob+Johnson"+1812+canoe&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcgeyItaDhAhXKD5oKHTUICy0Q6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q="Jacob%20Johnson"%201812%20canoe&f=false The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders has an entry on him, and is not about the son.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better than having to rely on an Andrew biography. Unfortunately, it's hard for me to comment on death details when my access gets cuts off after only one page while in the middle of discussing the drown rescue. That also is more of a collective gathering on Presidential parents you've already linked in your first comment than a source primarily focusing on him. I'm not saying it's a bad source, just that I can't get anything on Jacob as his own person other than the rescue out of it. Maybe I'll find something more accessible going into other details later on. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you are saying that you only see page 350 of Wead, 2005. Here is the text for Jacob's entry as it extends to page 351 (which is visible to me at: [45] - note that manually changing the url to point to a particular page sometimes reveals hidden pages of google books):

"...clothes, facing frigid temperatures, he became ill. Not long after ringing the bell for a funeral, he collapsed; he died shortly thereafter, leaving his wife and children alone.

Andrew Johnson, the youngest child and future president, was three years old. All he had of his father was an obituary written by Colonel [Thomas] Henderson on January 12, 1812 for the Raleigh Star.

[Blockquote]Died, in this city on Saturday last, Jacob Johnson, who cor many years occupied a humble but useful station. He was the city constable, sexton and porter to the State Bank. In his last illness he was visited by the principal inhabitants of the city, by all whom he was esteemed, none lament him, except perhaps his own relatives, more than the publisher of this newspaper, for he owes his life on a particular occasion to the kindness and humanity of Johnson.[38]

The rest of the page is dedicated to Mary McDonough Johnson. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, only page 350 of that book showed up for me. I might fiddle with URLs fir different results later if I get the chance. Thank you for the tip on that and providing an excerpt. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Presidential parents are commonly nominated for discussion. A recent example was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Lynch King Sr. There is significant reliably sourced research on the parents of presidents. For example:

Wead, Doug. The Raising of a President: The Mothers and Fathers of Our Nation's Leaders. Simon and Schuster, 2005. p 350[46]

Gullan, Harold I. Faith of Our Mothers: The Stories of Presidential Mothers from Mary Washington to Barbara Bush. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001. p 98[47]ostensably about Mary Johnson but with significant coverage of Jacob

Jacob is also a given significant coverage independent of Andrew in: Schroeder-Lein, Glenna R., and Richard Zuczek. Andrew Johnson: a biographical companion. Abc-clio, 2001. p168-169[48]

And, of course, Johnson is covered in biographies of his son Andrew and of his other son, William, for instance see:

Jones, James Sawyer. Life of Andrew Johnson: Seventeenth President of the United States. East Tennessee Publishing Company, 1901. p11-15[49]

Muir, Andrew Forest. "William P. Johnson, Southern Proletarian and Unionist." Tennessee Historical Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1956): 330.

Trefousse, Hans L. Andrew Johnson: A Biography. WW Norton & Company, 1997. p20 (currently cited in article)

So the article does not fail our core content policies (WP:CCPOL): V, NPOV, NOR. Also, as the subject is covered in many sources, it seems to me to be encyclopedic. I understand there is debate over this subject, especially in cases like King and Johnson where the individual had limited influence on their son's life, but I see an article like this as worth having. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my above response to Icewhiz. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- NOTINHERITED. Some months ago we deleted an article on the father of Prime Minister Theresa May. I see not more reason why this man should inherit notability from his very notable son than anyone else. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawks PDX[edit]

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

WP:ORG same editor has been sprinkling numerous run of the mill businesses and organizations in the Portland area. Like all the other ones, general notability is highly questionable. Graywalls (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon and spare everyone time discussing deletion.~~ @Graywalls: I wouldn't have reverted if you simply redirected the page. AfD does not need to be the first action to propose redirecting or merging content. By nominating this article for deletion you're forcing editors to spend (sometimes lots of) time discussing sourcing and notability when a simple redirect would be just fine, quick and easy. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Would you be willing to take another look at the article now that more sources have been added? Or do you still believe a redirect to be best? --Kbabej (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kbabej, To be honest, I'm just going to see how this plays out. I'm not against keeping the article, but I think we should redirect over deleting altogether when possible. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out these magazines mention Hawks PDX. Issuu.com is a bit difficult to navigate in terms of finding the specific mentions of the subject but I believe these should be taken into consideration as possible sourcing as well. I've posted this link on the article's talk page for future reference. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my vote to Keep based on the Issuu.com sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no way I'm going to inspect every listed item manually, but did you bother to investigate the context and extent of coverage? https://issuu.com/pqmonthly/docs/januaryfebruary_2014, page 28-29. The extent of coverage is that they are purchased an ad to be placed in an extremely ad-bloated in special market segment targeted publication that funded itself entirely through ad-revenue, therefore, anyone who paid for ad space can basically get their name placed. This doesn't even count as a source. "PQ Monthly was a free monthly LGBTQ newspaper and online publication for Oregon and southwest Washington, published in Portland". Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I never said all these should be added, I only said they were possible sources. I disagree about PQ Monthly being inappropriate sourcing. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So few newspapers and magazines exist outside of being "ad-bloated" and having "funded itself entirely through ad-revenue" that that is not an argument — consider Vanity Fair and The New York Times, just for instance. Nonetheless, I agree with deletion because it's just a bath house, one of many, and not individually notable (that I am aware of). AHampton (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:AUD on WP:ORG, "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Willamette Week and PQ Monthly are regional, not solely local. It states "at least one" is needed, and here we have two (possibly three, if you count TripSavvy, which is national. I just don't know anything about that site.) Below is a breakdown of the sources currently on the page, none of which are "simple listings or compilations" (ie: phone numbers and street address, etc.) Each is a review, excluding Oregon Bears, which covers events and services offered.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Willamette Week	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An in-depth review of the club by the publication
PQ Monthly	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	An article about the importance of gay bathhouses focusing on Hawks PDX
Bathhouse Blog	?	Y	?	Y	?	Blog reviews on bathhouses
TripSavvy	?	?	?	Y	?	Review of the club
Sex with Strangers	?	?	?	?	?	Podcast with a patron's experiences
Oregon Bears	N	N	?	?	?	Event listing and review of club offerings
Total qualifying sources					2+

--Kbabej (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment interesting. where did you find this? Graywalls (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: under WP:ORGCRITE. Given that there are now 5x the amount of sources on the article, what are your thoughts? WP:HEYMANN? Or not enough? --Kbabej (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej:These exact sources do not appear there and I would like to know who evaluated the criteria. You, or a noticeboard discussion? I'm unable to find any discussion on "PQ Monthly" in noticeboard discussions and Google shows me this source is predominantly used for Portland articles. One factor is factual reliability and another is their impact on notability. I would say a paper like Baker City Herald passes factual reliability. More than one articles about a venue in Baker City Herald, Statesman Journal and the Oregonian for something that is actually about venue might make it notable. What I mean here is that an article about venue because a car drove through it or a robbery there doesn't really cut it. Willamette Week is only distributed in the tricounty area. (Mult, Wash, Clack) so I would call it a LOCAL paper. I'd agree WW as reliable on facts, but I don't believe it would meets the notability required at the level for WP:ORG. Oh and it's only an alternative newspaper Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: Thanks for the reply. Sorry I wasn't clear on the table. I got the table from WP:ORGCRITE, but the assessment of the sources is solely mine. I would posit PQ Monthly is regional. On their site, they describe themselves as serving Oregon and SW Washington. They also have a San Francisco section. That wouldn't be considered local. As for Willamette Week, they cover all of Oregon news, but I'm not sure where distribution covers. --Kbabej (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Another editor felt WP:ORG doesn't have to be met if general notability is met, but I posit that's mistaken given the explanation in WP:ORGCRIT specifically says the difference is to deter MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS PROFESSIONALS from trying to game the rules. https://mediakit.wweek.com/ and https://www.wweek.com/find-a-paper/ I think it's safe to call it Portland Metro with emphasis on Portland proper contents. Graywalls (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

noting that above table is a personal assessment by Kbabej and not derived from noticeboard discussions like sources evaluated in references reliable sources supplement Graywalls (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's quite obvious to any experienced editor. No one is stating the above table is from an RSP. --Kbabej (talk) 19:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)
Keep - per WP:AUD on WP:ORG as shown in the review of the sources above.Thsmi002 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

generic comment The definition of regional is foggy. Willamette Week's paper print stands have a smaller area coverage than TriMet (the local metropolitan area transit system) and the focus of coverage is mostly Portland proper. This paper, along with the Portland Mercury are alternative papers and I don't think they carry much much weight in building notability. Graywalls (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: can you show a policy that states alternative newspapers don't "carry much weight in building notability"? Or is that just your opinion? --Kbabej (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of such specific phrasing from a policy. I've read essays WP:BOMBARD, WP:MASK and policies WP:GNG and WP:NORG. So as I see it, meeting the minimum requirements steers towards not running foul of automatic disqualification but meeting them do not give them a blanket pass for inclusion. From GNG:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
I continue to see a load of stitched up routine discussions in local papers in sections that uh.. talks about routine "things to do" type of stuff that do nothing as far as establishing reliable evidence of notability. WP:bombard Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative newspaper coverage doesn't fall under "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories", so that policy doesn't cover what we're talking about. --Kbabej (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment on sources as it exists now: I maintain my position, **strong delete**, because: * Ref 1: very local. WP:AUD

Ref 2: special interest. WP:AUD

Ref 3/4: routine and trivial. WP:SIGCOV

ref 5: dubious source/special interest sharing basic primitive fact about when it opened. Does not indicate notability. Essentially irrelevant source.

~~Ref 6: local interest covering local interest for local audience. WP:AUD~~

Above lacked specificity. Bathhouse blog: dubious source/special interest sharing basic primitive fact about when it opened. Does not indicate notability.

Rushall (free lance local writer) / WW WP:AUD WP:SIGCOV
Rushall (free lance local writer) / WW (I spent a night...): WP:AUD
PSU Vanguard: very local, very limited audience. WP:AUD
PQ Monthly: special interest WP:AUD
Rushall (free lance local writer) / WW : local interest covering local interst. WP:AUD WP:SIGCOV
ISSUU search result: unsurprisingly, mention of interst specific venues mentioned within interest specific magazines. Exactly like finding hobby shops mentioned in hobby magazines, gun shops in gun magazines, tuning shops in car magazines, etc.

Graywalls (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your position known. There's been some rearranging of content, so I'm not sure what "Ref 1", etc., refers to any longer. I noticed you asked here about Willamette Week specifically. Can you clarify the sources above? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating your comment above. You asked about Willamette Week here and were told Willamette Week is reliable. You keep throwing around all these abbreviations, but at the end of the day the subject has been profiled by multiple reliable sources. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSOPINION Reliable in the asserted statement is different from reliably establishing implicit notability. In the case of the particular author in particular sources, we're talking about a "a local freelance writer who likes to open windows. He writes about culture, food, and gay stuff." I would consider his evaluation an opinion piece and question the inclusion. His mention likely doesn't really increase general notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and the article notes the description is provided by Willamette Week's Jack Russell, which is compliant with WP:RSOPINION. I'm open to changing the article's wording, but I don't agree the sources are not acceptable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, no idea what you're talking about re: Issuu.com sources (Just Out, PQ Monthly, etc), which are also considered reliable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Rushall freelancer also contributes to HuffPost. See what is said about HuffPost, and Forbes contributor source articles. Again some freelancer's opinion is just that and I dispute your position that it's inclusion worthy. WP:RSP. This article is on organization/company, the most spam prone category meaning it's got to not fail neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG. Even passing them isn't a definitive guarantee of inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AfD discussion. Please state your justification. Graywalls (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and I don't owe you anything. I'll let others weigh in, thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer:Getting back on the contents. Reading one of Rashall article, I read his comment: "So I talked to my friend T, who used to work at Hawks PDX".So the freelance writer who contributed to the article approached the place where his friend used to work. This doesn't appear entirely independent of the article subject. Not about WW, but because of author's relatively close connection to the source. You posited "I am changing my vote to Keep based on the Issuu.com sources." I'm not going to waste the time to check every single search result, but, I checked a few. In the El Hispanic, it was a thank you mention for being an advertiser/sponsor. In PQ Monthly, the primary mention of Hawks is limited to a routine announcement of hosting site for STD testing. I'm surprised that you, as a self announced experienced editor suggest such search result as a sign of notability. Graywalls (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I have found the schema in Kbabej 's comment a useful way of approaching the various factors. And they are the factors, because the standard is in fact significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources. But in using it, I don't see that it can be expressed as a yes/no decision--sources of of various degrees of reliability and independence, coverage van be more or less significant, and even secondary is not always well-defined. We could I suppose come up with a 1-10 scale for each, and a way of weighting them, but there is still a problem that things are of a variable degree of notability, and it is very common here to have the alternatives , keep-slightly notable and that's good enough or, with exactly the same state of facts, delete, only slightly notable and that's not good enough. We in practice require different degrees for different subjects, and that's a function of what each ofus thinks the encyclopedia should be like. My own view is that we should require very clear notability for local establishments without historic status because of the weakness of all sources and the tendency to promotionalism . But someone else could rationally say that our attention to local social places is an important niche for WP, I note this place is only 7 years old., but perhaps that is rather long in context. In the end, that's the basis of my !vote for keep. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 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.