Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 March	5 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L'Strange[edit]

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

This album, along with Lovehammers' other three albums with articles, are all stubs and did not achieve any chart success, therefore making their articles unnecessary. JE98 (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @JE98: I trust you realise that charting is not necessarily the sole indication of notability; WP:NALBUMS says charting is an indication a release may be notable, not that it is. I'm not saying this article has news coverage out there, because I haven't looked. But users need to stop acting like charting is the sole measure of whether a music release should have an article or not. Ss112 14:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ss112: I do, I also mentioned how the articles are essentially unnecessary stubs whose information could be summed up on Lovehammers' article. Perhaps if they are expanded more I may change my stance. JE98 (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that charting is not the only possible notability criterion - but it doesn't appear to meet any other. The article, as it stands, has only one source - the band's fanclub's archived website. I looked for better sources, but I can't find any significant coverage in independent media. Not notable; delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:37, 9 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Shift Inc.[edit]

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

This company appears to have no in-depth or non-directory coverage to enable it to pass WP:CORP. While they have a few marginally notable products, the company appears to be NN and both WP:NPRODUCT and WP:INHERITORG apply.

Note that this article was created by a WP:SPA that appears to have a WP:COI with Blue Shift and its CEO, Jeff King (author). Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was kept as "an acceptable stub" in 2011 after the previous AfD, it's still a stub and serves no purpose other than to raise the public profile of the company the page author wanted to advertise (among the other things he wanted to advertise, such as himself). – Athaenara ✉ 06:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only independent source of any kind I could find was this, a court ruling about a dispute they were involved with. Their website doesn't have any titles with dates newer than 2011, so they may have gone out of business - if we can't find sources to confirm whether or not they still exist, we don't need an article about them. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little about them; mentions here and there, no in-depth coverage. The most promising source I found was this June 2003 article and related coverage of a collaboration, but no articles on its results. Perhaps they were classified. Too bad for Blue Shift, Inc, as they're left failing WP:NCORP. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 13 years on and still effectively and unreferenced stub. Their 2011 AfD was poorly discussed in my view with weak refs supporting keep. Little now. No real refs to improve this article or move it on from a stub. Britishfinance (talk) 00:15, 12 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 clear keep consensus based on newly found information. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Zarmati[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Google Scholar lists Zarmati's h-index as 5 (a higher number than I calculated myself by going through the publications listed in the article), which falls short of WP:NACADEMIC. I don't see any other evidence in the article or online that she meets WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Based on this source, she was awarded a Churchill Fellowship in 2005 and NSW Premier's History Scholarship in 2012 as research grants, and an educational program she consulted for won a National Trust (NSW) Heritage award for best education program in 2011. It's unclear to me, however, that these awards meet WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Lead or only author, or co-author, of at least 11 books almost all of which are held in multiple national and state libraries and in major university libraries - I think satisifies AUTHOR.
Recipient of three grants from respected institutions, eg, Churchill - I think this satisifies professional recognised standing, and combined easily satisfies ANYBIO.
Does have some peer reviewed and cited publications.
Has been a contributor to national education curriculum standards - easily satisfies very high level of recognition in area of professional academic expertise.

Coverage is across wide range of education and professional publications, and also general media, and is sustained. Aoziwe (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added her textbooks to the Select publications, and reviews I have found of some of them. I believe the book reviews, and being selected as a writer of the History learning area in the Australian Curriculum, among other factors, show the recognition she is accorded in her field (whether that is WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NACADEMIC #C7). RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the basis of new information (above). Britishfinance (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep less than 30 of the 73 Australian Archaeologists on wikipedia are women, weighting here for gender+WP:CSB is relevant.--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:16, 11 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:BASIC due to lack of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Also does not meet WP:NACADEMIC - Scopus shows that his scholarly authorship consists of 4 non-memo articles with 18 citations total per Scopus while Web of Science reveals no articles. He also published RFC memos which should not count as "research", of which only RFC 2434 is heavily cited (Google Scholar gives 6 memos with over 50 citations and several memos of fewer citations) even if they did count, and 4 non-memo articles with 18 citations total per Scopus. Also sat on the board of a few standards organizations but that in itself doesn't grant notability. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being the subject of the article, I'm not going to take a position on this, but I fundamentally disagree with the poster's dismissal of RFCs as "memos which should not count" when determining notability. RFCs are, in my opinion, much more influential than most formally published sources. Alvestrand (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I do not mean that RFCs are not influential nor important. But they are not the usual peer-reviewed academic publications. If a particular RFC is highly cited by journal articles, conference articles, or academic books then it can certainly count towards "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" per Criterion #1 of WP:NACADEMIC.

In this case, it does not appear that these RFCs satisfy the above property (even the citations of RFC 2434 are almost exclusively from other RFCs). I'm not making the statement that your work is not influential, but that I cannot find evidence of it currently meeting WP:NACADEMIC nor the other notability guidelines. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say Harald's contributions in IETF, as specialist, Applications Group leader and writer was vital for the Internet we know today. Important standards such as all the email, directories and internationalisations standards were created in part or in full by him, and are still what carries our daily communication FrodeHernes (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC) — FrodeHernes (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With regards to WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, I have found one source from a reliable secondary independent outlet with significant independent coverage of the subject (the same exact article is also published here and a similar article by the same author appears here). I could not find another one but if someone does, that should be sufficient for notability. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not delete Harald. He taught us stuff. (Paul Vixie) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.189.21.181 (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC) — 98.189.21.181 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Noting that scientists are "referred to as 'academics' for convenience" and accordingly mapping the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to the context of the IETF, I would argue that authoring a dozen RFCs, half of which are BCPs (including the IETF's mission statement), already clearly satisfies the first ("significant impact") test, as well as the seventh test ("substantial impact outside academia") given the widespread adoption of said RFCs in industry. His membership on several selective and significant boards satisfies test three and/or five ("elected member" and "named chair" respectively), and being the chair of the IETF for a non-negligible time satisfies tests six and/or eight in this context ("highest-level post" and "chief editor" respectively). I also note that his IETF predecessor and successor both have articles with similar profiles, yet neither is listed in AfD. -- samj _in ^out 07:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I will just note my disagreement with a few points. The "significant impact" and "substantial impact outside academia" may be true but 'need to be demonstrated by external independent sources'. Membership on editorial boards and boards of directors of non-profit companies (granted, they are not typical non-profits) is not equivalent to being an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society). It is even less close to being equivalent to being a named chair or distinguished professorship (e.g. the Sadleirian Professor of Pure Mathematics or an MIT Institute Professor). The existence of similar articles that have not been AfD'ed yet is also not relevant (it is possible that they should be as well). — MarkH21 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I agree that the predecessor and successor do not provide basis for an argument, their presence under a similar interpretation of the guidelines (described in the context of academia "for convenience") is relevant. I'd also argue that the selection process for both contributors and contributions in this context are at least as stringent as for academia, and the impact, to the point made below, typically far greater. Hence opting for a "strong keep" rather than soft balling it. -- samj _in ^out 05:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User:SamJ summed it up well, so I won't bother repeating all of that, but suffice it to say, I think being an IETF chair (and the first non-American, and the who wrote their mission statement, etc.) makes him plenty notable enough for Wikipedia. Beginning (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep leaning towards User:SamJ, while we can talk up or down impact, and WP:N is not inherited from the other chairs as we need multiple non-primary / third party sources for GNG which isn't met yet. In this case, I think despite a BLP, primaries are OK as per NACADEMIC which is the spirit here. I will remove my old notability tag. Widefox; talk 22:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Concerning RFCs: standards track RFCs are very heavily peer reviewed. While they are not the standard academic journal article, they are a notable intellectual work. From a pragmatic perspective, they have more impact, on average, than normal scientific work. And it's more than slightly ironic that any web site question this. Please consider the work that is at the basis of the site and the whole Internet: RFC 791 (IP), RFC 793 (TCP), RFC 2616 (HTTP), and RFC 2660 (HTTPS) just to name a few. Harald's specific contributions are easily seen here.Tony1athome (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I am with User:SamJ on many levels. I would also reiterate the sentiment expressed by User:Tony1athome about RFCs being heavily peer reviewed. If nothing else, he does qualify under “The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.“ TonyHansen 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does meet the broader interpretation of WP:NACADEMIC. At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, I think a reader in this area would expect to find a WP BLP. Britishfinance (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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Kobrovsky[edit]

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

Actor who falls under too soon, only role isn't even out yet. Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G7. Author has blanked the page. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You could make a case for A7. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have just corrected the IMDb link which was for an actress and it now confirms he has only one known role in an unreleased film so this is very WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reliable sources are not available Reddragon7 (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, As per above, article does not provide reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also note this is a run of the mill actor. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no established track record covered by independent reliable sources. Agree with WP:TOOSOON. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Abhinandan Varthaman. The Keep rationales, apart from the first two, are simply "it's notable". Black Kite (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinandan moustache[edit]

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

Not enough for stand alone article, fails WP:GNG. Delete and redirect to parent page. Störm (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily passes GNG. There are dozens of news stories discussing this in detail, how it appears, how tens of thousands of people are suddenly wearing it, how numerous companies are using it to promote products, what it represents, its history, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt that the subject passes GNG.[1][2] Shashank5988 (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing fad and WP:INDISCRIMINATE--regentspark (comment) 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abhinandan Varthaman, there is not a need for a separate article. The merely days-old fad is more about emulating the hero pilot than this being a unique topic. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abhinandan Varthaman - I agree with the above; this doesn't warrant a separate article, but is notable enough to be a section in the Pilot's entry. 100.2.170.20 (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Abhinandan Varthaman, with appropriate expansion of section, no need to have a separate article on this. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because there is passing lighthearted coverage in the newsmedia about a person's body part does not mean wikipedia needs to have a separate article on it. Compare with the deletion discussion for "Michelle Obama's arms", whose closing would be apt for this one, "The result was Delete, and merge in to the [main] article the little that is relevant. This is obviously not a topic that is appropriate for an encyclopedia." Abecedare (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article must keep.because it make world record in some time many people from world are creating this style.many companies using this style in advertisement. merge is not proper way because this article is bigger and it is not right time to merge this article.Indiamerijaan2001 (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abhinandan Varthaman but keep the short history, per Anna Frodesiak's argument, and because it would be required to attribute whatever is merged. Topic is notable only within the context of the subject's bio. If it becomes an enduring style (longer than, for example, the typical news cycle, or the cycle length of individuals with facial hair shaving) then perhaps an article, but this is WP:TOOSOON for the standalone treatment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, dang! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Moustache Section is already present at the article Abhinandan Varthaman. Adding info from this page to the already present section will add value if any. Standalone is not needed. Though allow recreation if coverage is continued after at least 3 months from now. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abhinandan Varthaman. samee converse 15:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abhinandan Varthaman per Coolabahapple. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough supporting references. It is now very notable. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Keep to Abhinandan Varthaman because it appears to have enough sources to be its own page, and it will most likely expand with time. puggo (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See List of facial hairstyles to see how it compares to other articles. (The others there have been around a lot longer.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per avobe. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 04:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Abhinandan Varthaman and create a subsection. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 11 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Jewell[edit]

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

Lacks presumed notability and fails the google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not shocked that a head college football coach from 1919 fails the "google" test. Typically, we find that head college football coaches generate enough press to pass WP:GNG--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- by the way, WP:GOOGLEHITS is clear that there really isn't a "google test" and is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He apparently became head coach two years after lettering at Iowa and coached at Luther for two years. It's not clear at all to me that two years coaching at a division III school affords automatic notability. It is mentioned as being enough at WP:CFBCOACH, but it's not part of WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head football coaches as schools that are now Division III tend to be notable in this era, as college football was not differentiated into divisions then. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, the NFL didn't form until the next year and then it was a regional event--college-level football was the highest expression of the sport at the time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did my best to beef up the article. Regrettably, my searches turn up zero in terms of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In fact, nothing even close. When Jewell was the coach for three months in 1919, Luther College was a very small college (a total student body of only 217 students in 1919 per the book cited in the article at p. 203). My searches also fail to turn up significant coverage of the 1919 Luther football team. The two principal sources included in the article currently are not "independent", consisting of a book written by the the Luther College faculty and a paid death notice (which tellingly doesn't even mention his having been either a football player or coach). I am afraid we have truly reached the outermost limits of college football coach notability. Cbl62 (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If another editor can find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Agree with Jweiss11. There might be offline references available, hard to find though. Legion X (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is this mention a [3] in Hawkeye Legends, Lists, & Lore, it lists every injury sustained by the team in the 1917-18 season; our Walter broke his collarbone. I ran a Proquest news search on "Walter jewell" + football, and came up empty. It is a common name, which makes him harder to find, so there should be no prejudice against creating an article if someone in future can source him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:41, 4 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chidokeyz[edit]

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

Sourcing consists of two puff-piece interviews (as in, please promote yourself here:...); more in-depth, critical, or international coverage seems nonexistant. Currently fails WP:NARTIST. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Vanguard is one of Nigeria's more reliable sources, but the article cited is not independent in the slightest. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up and coming artist in Nigeria and has not released any body of work. A Google search of him only brings up promotional links and press releases about his songs. In addition to the Vanguard source, this source published by The Punch is also not independent of the subject. Nigerian newspapers have a tendency of writing interview-styled articles about artists. Since this practice is the norm in Nigeria, I believe WP:MUSICBIO is the more suitable guideline to use. That aside, the subject of this article has not won or been nominated for any of Nigeria's major awards; The Headies and Nigeria Entertainment Awards. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failure of WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No material independent RS on him for WP:SIGCOV. Any refs seem primary and promotional related. Britishfinance (talk) 00:22, 12 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Dull[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements at all. At a minimum, we need more than just a article in the local newspaper.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence from reliable sources that this guy passes WP:GNG, much less WP:ENT. He apperas to be run of the mill or early in his career. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little RS to support any kind of GNG. Very minor mentions. How did this article survive for so long on WP? Britishfinance (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy request to closing editor, please give me a few minutes to try and source this one. I'm getting promising hits in an news archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury (A7, G11). (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 14:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ostron Electronics[edit]

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

I am assuming good faith, but the author has had the article deleted and they recreated several times now. I think this is an issue of the editor not understanding what exactly independent reliable sources are. I suggested on their talk page to make their draft in their userspace until they can find acceptable references. Psu256 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete and salt. There's no claim of significance nor can I find anything that indicates it's notable Praxidicae (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Clearly a promotional article. CSD has been attempted and removed twice already without proper assessment. Ajf773 (talk) 23:03, 4 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig J. N. de Paulo[edit]

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

Article has been marked as deficient since 2013 without substantial revisions. AMDG4 (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable religious leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Bishop of the very small "Old Catholic" faction/denomination. Note that the theological college of which he is or was head has been deleted for lack of notability: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collegium Augustinianum.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above comment non-notable religious leader. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not been mentioned in a reliable source. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If the article's content is correct, he ought to be notable. However I note that his appointment was from west Africa, which does not bode well. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 11 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sampite[edit]

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

Small city mayor in Louisiana who fails WP:NPOL and, like many other articles from User:Billy Hathorn, has no real references to support WP:GNG. Sources used are: 1) his obit in a local newspaper; 2) a link to a now-defunct tourism site for Natchitoches, LA that doesn't have any mention of the subject; 3) a link to the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame, which doesn't have his bio and is not doesn't qualify as notable alone; 4-6) election returns; and 7) another obituary in another local newspaper. GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did find this. Someone should have really told User:Billy Hathorn about Conservapedia. They might like to contribute there. _{RIP Mayor Sampite} –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, yeah. Delete per nomination. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable purely local political figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an argument could be made that as mayor for 2 decades of a regional city, he could be notable. I don't see any proof, and have no way of knowing, but I'm open to somebody else tryng to save this article per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. His notability is tied to local sources and in connection to being the mayor of a small U.S. town. Britishfinance (talk) 00:27, 12 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Madness Begin[edit]

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

This appears to fail WP:NALBUM. It hasn't been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, independent, major reviews. It hasn't charted nationally. It hasn't been certified gold. It hasn't won a notable award. It doesn't meet the "medium that is notable" clause. It doesn't appear to have been on rotation on a major radio station. And a "let+the+madness+begin"+"cirkus" source search indicates that it hasn't been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment. SITH (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to CirKus. Not enough found to justify a separate article, but a band's studio albums are always going to be worthwhile redirects to the band's article. --Michig (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: the article for CirKus is not about the same band – that might affect your vote above. As such, this could be a speedy delete per A9. Richard3120 (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Delete then, unless someone manages to create an article on the band before the AfD closes. --Michig (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the band are now called Critical Cirkus, if anyone is searching for sources, but that doesn't seem to bring up anything further regarding notability. Richard3120 (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree. This fails WP:NALBUM as well as the GNG. It has no reliable sources. Also, why is the article stating that "CirKus" is the artist when there is no mention of the album on that page? I only see three albums ("Laylow", "Laylower", and "Medicine") listed on that article. I also don't understand why this could be a redirect when the artist's article fails notability too, relying on one source. Horizonlove (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Horizonlove: I've already explained above... the group Cirkus that has a Wikipedia article, and the group Cirkus that made this album, are two different groups. Richard3120 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:40, 10 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. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) Gaelan 💬✏️ 00:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tonello[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. Only mentions I can find are two short-ish interviews about the Respoke thing—if anything, that should get an article. Gaelan 💬✏️ 17:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on talk page from article creator in 2007: "Michael Tonello is a public figure in the fashion industry, and the information listed is verifiable. I am in no way affiliated with him other than through my knowledge of Hermes as a whole due to my interest in the fashion industry. All of the facts presented are verifiable. If you Google his name, there are any number of responses, and the info regarding his book publication has been Publishers Marketpace." Gaelan 💬✏️ 17:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terrible page. Passes WP:AUTHOR. Editors need to run searches that bring up older articles, like the 2008 New York Times book review I just added to the page. Added a few more reviews. There is stuff out there from which an article can be built: Boston Herald: Bag man: Brockton’s Tonello reveals how to score the prized Birkins ; a Episode 672: Bagging a Birkin, Planet Money; Washington Washington: NPR. (Dec 25, 2015). The material is out there. Page just needs an editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN I sourced it and cleaned up PROMO. It's no longer terrible. An an WP:AUTHOR, he's a one-hit wonder, but his book got a lot of attention. He still gets quoted as an expert on Birkin bags. About which, well, it's the kind of niche product about which an intelligent, sane person might not even want to know. But we keep notable authors, experts even on strange topics - when their books get reviewed and discussed in major media. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Freeman[edit]

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

Small town (current population=1,500) Mayor who fails WP:NPOL and doesn't have the sources, both currently and after conducting a search for more coverage, to establish WP:GNG. The references used in this article are: 1) his obit in the The Shreveport Times saved on Legacy.com; 2) a dead link to an untitled Shreveport Times article; 3, 4 & 5) election returns; 6) a dead link to what I believe was Freeman's wife's voter registration info; 7) a dead link to his wife's obituary; 8) a blog article in which Freeman's wife is listed, along with several hundred other local politicians, as having endorsed Mary Landrieu's 2014 senate run. GPL93 (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the most clearly non-notable local politician I have ever seen an article on, and that is saying a lot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure he was a great guy, but still one of thousands of local politicians in the United States. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 9 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Person Does Not Exist[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Whereas are notable, we have an article for them. This is merely a new website displaying GAN creations which has elicited a minimum of comments from a couple of blogs. Tagishsimon (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Boing-Boing and Slashdot are not blogs. Nor is arXiv. kencf0618 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the website has been specifically designed to familiarize people with the applications of generative adversarial networks, maybe it deserves a mention in the Application section of that article rather than its own page? PraiseVivec (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. kencf0618 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article needs to be improved, a quick search showed far more sources than are currently listed in the blog. This website has been the focus of a lot of tech publications in the past couple weeks. I think we need more consensus. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already folded this article into the main GAN article and added a few more citations there. This technology has already been used in art research, and its own development is fascinating. kencf0618 (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of significant coverage. [4] [5] [6] [7] wumbolo ^^^ 09:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks to be heading towards a Keep, but a little more consensus either way would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t see enough significant coverage from reliable sources. Trillfendi (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mention in the GAN article seems fine but there are already multiple places which do exactly the same thing including an Android app. PhobosIkaros ✉ 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's lots of sources, including CNN. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Swing back on the balance, further discussion (or discussion of current !votes) still needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:14, 4 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 defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination though given the history I would encourage a cooling off period before renominating. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Management International[edit]

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

Not independently notable--the article on Savory covers it . DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NONPROFIT. Scale is good, and importance is established with reliable sources. The Savory article does not cover HMI and there is resistance to doing so. -- Paleorthid (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allan Savory per nom. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 9 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. Clean-up and clean-out recommended. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Zoss[edit]

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

BLP with no sources. Can't find any notability outside. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's shaky, but there are quite a few results in Google news, and while none of them say much I think it's enough for GNG. Gaelan 💬✏️ 04:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article indicates a number of things that suggest notability, including a character having a stamp and several rewards. It might need a thorough cleaning out of material challenging for BLPs, but its definitely in the keep category. Sadads (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Rolleston[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Sources are either passing mentions as member of some organisation, or local sources, letters, or primary sources. Indepth independent sources about Rolleston seem to be missing though. Fram (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some mentions in GBooks, particularly in the Journal, but really no sustained coverage or instance of biography to verify the article. The letter references are mostly name drops and certainly verify the existence and position of the man, but not much else. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 8 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 Energy 52. Black Kite (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Schmitz-Moormann[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ, fails WP:GNG & WP:DJ. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Flooded w/them 100s 14:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you might be showing your age here, Flooded with them hundreds, by describing the subject as "not notable"... under the name of Kid Paul, he was a very well-known trance DJ during the 1990s, playing around the world. Under the alias of Energy 52, he was also responsible for the record "Café del Mar", one of the best-known dance records of all-time, which has charted in at least six different countries and was named best tune ever by the staff of Mixmag back in 2001. Again, this might be a case of a DJ preceding the internet age and reliable sources most likely occurring in print versions of dance magazines in the 1990s and early 2000s. At the very least, I think this should be redirected to Energy 52, pending searches of back issues of Mixmag and the like. Richard3120 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I cannot find any significant coverage of Kid Paul that is not associated with Energy 52, or with Paul van Dyk. See here and here. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page (such as it is) was moved from Kid Paul a while ago, with the observation he produced under several aliases, so moving to real name. As we already have a (presumably notable) article on him as Energy 52 it'd make more sense to keep this title and merge stuff from there to this, rather than the other way around. He also has an article on the German WP (also, presumably, notable), which could be cribbed to here to flesh this title out. And (with regard to WP:DJ) has a discography as long as your arm in the external links. Swanny18 (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it does make sense to merge the Energy 52 page into this one, because he is far better known under that alias than under his real name. The German Wikipedia article only has two references, one for his year of birth, and the other an interview in which he says he is giving up DJing... not a lot there that can be used to flesh out the English article. And making lots of records isn't really a sign of notability, just productivity. Richard3120 (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist given the split views and the fact that the final discussion was more "which should merge" rather than a deletion consideration
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 4 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. Really this should have been tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11, but since this discussion has run its course, I am going to avoid the extra procedure and just delete this. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kh Siile Anthony[edit]

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

Other than the fact that the article is written like a resume. This person is a high-ranking employee in a few minor public organizations. The awards he won aren't significant, and he has little to no mentions in any news articles. Daiyusha (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his Twitter page states "Intending Candidate, Outer Manipur Constituency, Lok Sabha Election - 2019", which seems like a clear failed WP:NPOL. Cabayi (talk) 14:12, 4 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. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammarly[edit]

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

This article is mainly promotional, with very little encyclopedic content. It heavily resembles spam/promotional content. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 12:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. See for instance: "Japos, Genaro V. "Effectiveness of coaching interventions using grammarly software and plagiarism detection software in reducing grammatical errors and plagiarism of undergraduate researches." JPAIR Institutional Research 1.1 (2013): 97-109.", "Qassemzadeh, Abolfazl, and Hassan Soleimani. "The impact of feedback provision by grammarly software and teachers on learning passive structures by Iranian EFL learners." Theory and Practice in Language Studies 6.9 (2016): 1884-1894.", "Dembsey, J. M. "Closing the Grammarly® gaps: a study of claims and feedback from an online grammar program." The Writing Center Journal (2017): 63-100.", "Darayani, Nisrin Adelyna, Laksnoria Laksnoria Karyuatry, and Muhammad Dhika Arif Rizqan. "GRAMMARLY AS A TOOL TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’WRITING QUALITY." Edulitics (Education, Literature, and Linguistics) Journal 3.1 (2018): 36-42.", etc. etc. If this short article is overly promotional (and it doesn't appear all that bad to me - a bit too much fluff perhaps - but not TNT) - it should be rectified in the article. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep - Can the article be improved? WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP – The Grid (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, as The Grid said. EggRoll79 said that the article is mostly promotional. I don't think this is a deletion reason. As for the topic itself, I find it to be very notable with there being more than 10 reliable refs already. It definitely needs cleanup, but AfD isn't cleanup. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 14:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I disagree that there are 10 reliable references. Several of the currently cited references appear to be Forbes.com contributor pieces, which are considered unreliable (see WP:RSP). Other pieces are published by Grammarly inc., or appear on news release sites. I assume the pieces in The Hindu and Korea Times are more reliable, but each includes only a passing mention in articles about online writing aids generally. Cnilep (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NSOFT and the article is not G11-promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really dont see any promotional content at all. It has a fairly even keel, to be honest. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ... I am plagued by adverts for this product but more seriously the answer is to improve rather than delete. If its deleted it will be back sometimes risking apparent copy violations. I have confidence in others searches that there are reliable sources, I have no confidence in this nomination.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above, AFD is not cleanup — plenty of sources can also be procured on this subject. It's notable. --ElKabong888 (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I have received adverts for this service, and it is frequently discussed at the educational institution I attend as well — not valid reasons to retain or delete this article, but worth noting. --ElKabong888 (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Definitely notable, per above comments --Plaxie (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Getting coverage. It mentions the security breach, which a biased article would not. Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is no longer a promotional piece. Raymond3023 (talk) 20:02, 5 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. Sandstein 20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-followed Instagram accounts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single source and looks like a fansite. Fails WP:NOR as well as WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:LISTN. [8][9] "It gets vandalized" is not a valid reason to delete a page. — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.-- · Bradford ✉ 20:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 11:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --BlueFire10 ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 14:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given tbe fact that the sourcing is absolutely terrible, the numbers change daily, and the information itself is simply unecyclopedic. It’s trivia! And for God’s sake whose idea was it to put these unprofessional, childish pink and blue gender markings there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: Unfortunately there is List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. I really don't like this article missing WP:GNL. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody with two brain cells would know Cristiano Ronaldo is a man and Kylie Jenner is a woman. Putting gender markings next to their names is stupid and inconsistent given that in the Countries section it implies that those countries have a gender.... Trillfendi (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed them entirely and replaced it with a check mark indicating that it's a corporate or government account BOLDly. It's pretty clear who the account belongs to and how they identify, so it's overdata for the sake of overdata. Nate • (chatter) 06:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:LIST. Skirts⁸⁹ 19:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I think you mean WP:LISTN) Colin M (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I agree with the "gender markings next to their names is stupid" point though). Tony85poon (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi @BlueFire10 and Tony85poon: - just thought I'd drop you a reminder that your keep votes won't be "!votes" (not-votes/justified statements) if you don't provide a degree of reasoning with your Keep/Delete/Merge etc, so any closer will discount them. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are hardly any mention in these celebrities' pages about their insta accounts. Fails context. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that holds up as an argument to delete - logically it should be mentioned in their pages, but the fact that it isn't, yet, doesn't warrant the information's deletion elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We have lists like this for YouTube as well. It's interesting and relevant. If we delete it here, then there won't really be a better place for people to get a list like this. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far, most Keep suggestions are offered without justification, or are based on a simple notability assertion, or assure us that policy is met. But, as the relevant guideline advises, we should really be focusing on whether the list is of encyclopedic and topical relevance. -The Gnome (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment participants in this discussion may be interested in reading this AfD for a similar article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-liked Instagram posts. The main difference I see is that that article currently has much better sourcing. I'm having a hard time finding quality sources reporting on follower counts for any individual account, or about the overall ranking of accounts by followers. Colin M (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator should have considered MULTIAFD. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did but then made the better decision not to and let each one stand on its own merits. Several have been deleted and several remain so, no, multi-AFD would not have been the correct decision.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:LISTN. There are many more articles of its kind, such as List of most-liked Facebook pages, List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most streamed artists on Spotify etc. And i think the visitors like to have a statistics of the social media. Legion X (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not useful for encyclopedia WP:Nostat - MA Javadi (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not necessarily less notable than the similar lists for FaceBook , Twitter and YouTube. Unoc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : The suggestions to Keep the list are still being justified on variants of WP:OTHER, i.e. that other such stuff exists in Wikipedia. And now the latest Keep suggestion uses those other ones as justification! What we've got here is failure in reasoning. -The Gnome (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:LISTN states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". A search for "most followed instagram accounts" reveals such discussion from Business Insider, TechCrunch and The Independent. The article may have problems, but it does seem notable. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regrettably per WP:LISTN. The media like such trivia, and such lists are commonly reported, as given above by others and also in search (e.g. [10][11][12]). WP:NOTSTATS do say what list might be acceptable, and linked to WP:LISTN - since it qualifies under LISTN, NOTSTATS no longer applies and is therefore not a relevant issue here. Hzh (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Novorol[edit]

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

DOes not meet standard for notability as an academic or otherwise. With only 3 moderately cited articles she does not meet WP PROF. With the only significant 3rd party ref be a placement in a Forbes list, se doesn't meet GNG DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see enough to make WP:GNG or WP:PROF, I have a concern this may well be a self-promotion or vanity article. Newly registered user, first article etc. W C M_email 12:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment here are some additional references that may be useful in assessing notability: https://www.digitalhealth.net/2018/03/ada-health-co-founder-claire-novorol-women-female/ https://sifted.eu/articles/ada-health-tech-app-preventative-health/ Tadpole (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Hold Any notability is clearly as a businessperson, yet she is not on a list for that. Rather difficult to assess the notability of the founder of a free app company, but we apparently don't have problems with the notability of the co, & at the least should merge to that. I'm noticing some very erratic list-sorting on this rare visit to afd, and autopilot responses. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can people follow-up on the sources mentioned by Tadpole?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Party of India[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the Notability Criteria and The content is inclined towards promotional and self buffs NewGen.Kat (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly sourced; Can the nominator please say how this article fails the notability criteria considering the citations present? –eggofreason^talk 16:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and has been significantly covered by reputed sources. Raymond3023 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep.Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Obviously meets WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:30, 11 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) SITH (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitle (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per Talk:Subtitle#Requested move 24 February 2019 the disambiguation page has been handled with a hatnote on Subtitle. SITH (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wumbolo, Whats new?, Randy Kryn, Netoholic, AjaxSmack, BD2412 as participants of the requested move discussion. SITH (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is a 2001 mainspace page at MfD? Why in the world wouldyou delete this? At most it should be redirected at Subtitle so existing and future links work Legacypac (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, as the requested move was successful and the nominator also included the statement about deleting the disambiguation page, as a part of the post-move clean-up process I am obliged to procedurally nominate it. I should have made it clear I have no opinion on this. SITH (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per nom. This has history but there are a lot of deleted duplicate articles around the topic of subtitles. wumbolo ^^^ 10:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep and speedy close - am I the only one that sees three entries on this DAB page? Why would we ever delete a DAB page with more 3 or more entries. More important, this page has SIGNIFICANT history - see this edit which notes a page split. Ridiculous nomination. -- Netoholic @ 10:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, please see my reply to Legacypac above. And try to be nice, you made your point, there's no point calling an action I was bound to undertake by procedure as ridiculous. SITH (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some level of due care is necessary. We do not nominate for deletion pages with significant edit history. This page's edit history is the very origin of the article now sitting at primary. -- Netoholic @ 11:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion moved from this MFD to AFD by me. Iffy★Chat -- 14:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added an additional sense that meets WP:DABMENTION. bd2412 T 14:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above but also keep hatnote. wumbolo ^^^ 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid dab page. PamD 17:23, 5 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. WP:V is not negotiable, and per WP:BURDEN those who want to keep this must provide the sources. Sandstein 20:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of highway strips in Poland[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2011, absolutely no notability. Lists of highway strips are not common place on Wikipedia Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. As a list it may be notable, but as written, this is pure WP:OR. It could be a hoax, or not, how are we supposed to tell? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely unreferenced, therefore can't be trusted as a reliable and encyclopedic article. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topics, merely strips of highway known to be possible to land a plane on in an emergency. No third-party sources. Reywas92^Talk 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources WP:NEXIST, though finding reliable sources online may not be easy. The Polish Wikipedia article on highway strips [13] states that there are 21 highway strips in Poland, and it has a reference for one, which could certainly be added to this list [14]. The English Wikipedia article Highway strip has a list of highway strips in Switzerland (8), and names the 3 highway strips in Cyprus in the para on that country. For Sweden, there are links to separate articles Bas 60 and Bas 90, which contain lists of highway strips. So as far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, highway strips are covered in various ways in Wikipedia. The main question with this list for Poland seems to me to be sourcing. There are other sources online, eg [15] which seems to be on a website for pilots, and may not be considered reliable, I don't know. This is another source about the highway strips in general, with some specific ones mentioned [16] - again, I find it hard to know what is reliable of the various Polish media I find. But I am sure that reliable sources would exist, even if they are not online. IF this list is not kept as a separate article, I recommend merging it into Highway_strip#Poland. (I do wonder whether anyone has done WP:BEFORE. AfD is not about the state of sourcing in the article, but about what sources exist, so being unreferenced is not a reason to delete!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Per WP:SALAT, "The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Clark (financial writer)[edit]

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

Hello. I cannot find much online about this businessman except to confirm that he is/was indeed the founder and chairman of First Guaranty Mortgage Corporation. His self-published book The Story Behind the Mortgage and Housing Meltdown: The Legacy of Greed has some online presence but definitely not the kind of reliable sources that would help the subject pass WP:NAUTHOR. Biwom (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created by an SPA and shows no significant independent coverage of him. Book was self-published and there's nothing to show that WP:NAUTHOR is met. My own search didn't turn up additional sources for him, but the name is common and his coverage is dwarfed by better known individuals with the same name. Papaursa (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:VANITY. Possible WP:PAID, but pretty low quality... anyway, fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 4 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. While reasonable arguments to keep the article were presented, the delete !votes quest for reliable sourcing went unanswered. I find the focus on lack of sourcing more in accordance with policy. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Catholic Church[edit]

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

Cannot find reliable sources discussing this church. (Note while searching for "universal catholic church" gets lots of hits, they are all using that term to mean the mainstream Roman Catholic Church, or else in some more abstract sense of the entirety of Christianity as a whole, rather than as a reference to this particular denomination.) SJK (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article says the Universal Catholic Church differs theologically from the Roman Catholic church, so it might be worthy of its own article. Vorbee (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vorbee: I could start a church in my garage that differs theologically from the Roman Catholic Church (or any other church for that matter), that doesn't make the church in my garage notable. Maybe this church is just one guy in his garage, maybe it has many thousands of members–in the absence of reliable sources, how can we confidently tell? (Also, the article doesn't clearly explain how they theologically differ from the Roman Catholic Church, nor are there any WP:RS provided for those differences.) SJK (talk) 09:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any independent sources provided here. The books cited appear to pertain to this denomination's predecessors, not this denomination itself, because some of them were written by people who died before this denomination was founded. Looking at the denomination's website, it appears that they only have four places of worship which are sufficiently public for them to post their street addresses, and the list has not been updated in 5 years. If independent sources can be found which establish this denomination as notable, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete founding a new church is like founding a new theatre company or a new political party. Sources are needed to prove notability. According to this page, this church was founded shortly before this page was created: " In April 2007, Bishop Dean Bekken severed his parish and those clergy under him from the LCCI and formed the Universal Catholic Church. " Note that Bishop Dean Bekken is not bluelinked. And that the page has no sources at all. I thought of suggesting userfy, but the editor who created the page in 2008 hasn't logged in since 2011. I've run searches on "Universal Catholic Church" + "Dean Bekken"; "Universal Catholic Church" 2007; and on "Dean Bekken" - which brought up a local news article: (They're angry, and won't take any more | Neighbors organize to stamp out crime: [1,2 Edition] Wilkens, John. The San Diego Union; San Diego, Calif. [San Diego, Calif]06 Mar 1988: B-3.... Dean Bekken, the pastor at St. Francis Liberal Catholic Church." almost certainly our Bekkan, but local interest story a cecade before the schism that created this church. Article has sat for over a decade without a single WP:RS. delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep -- This appears to be a denomination, albeit a splinter of (perhaps the Old Catholic) church. If it were a single congregation, I would vote otherwise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, that's not unreasonable, but we need some sourcing. I could reconsider if there. are sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am strengthening my vote to keep, on the basis that it claims to have 5 US dioceses, which I assume to have several congregations. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But see their list of locations of places of worship at http://www.universalcatholic.org/locations_1.html. There are only seven locations listed, and three of those don't have street addresses shown. One of the latter is described as a "private chapel", which implies to me that it might be based in a private home. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Holmqvist[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG ^{Babymissfortune} 06:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:NHOOPS and lacks the coverage to meet the GNG. I found typical sports reporting and an interview with his college coach who says if he improves he could interest others into having him play at the next level (not independent and WP:CRYSTALBALL). Sandals1 (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He was part of the national team in SEABA but I don't think there is enough coverage for the player which would fail in WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 05:42, 9 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. This is a borderline frivolous nomination. No need to waste editorial resources. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 09:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd control in Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

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

As per DYK nomination epic failure and no one seeming to understand what is going on. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't quite understand this nomination, which is made by the article creator. If you're frustrated with the DYK review, you could simply withdraw the DYK nomination and move on. Why do you want to delete the entire article? It seems to be quite well referenced. -Zanhe (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s dramatic irony. Trillfendi (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zanhe, as per DYK reasons given by other editors such as NPOV. (I am stating the reasons given by the DYK opposers as AFD reasons, and not the DYK nomination itself) Also I shouldn't have created this article since I think I have essentially ~~twisted~~ "used" references in a way that abides by Wikipedia policies, but not in a way that does justice to the topic at large. It is my opinion that I do not see these problems being sorted out for this particular article. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the result of this AFD is keep then of course it can stay. But if it is delete it should go. If the result is keep, I will stay away from the article for at least a month since I have already been tagged for overreacting. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Not a valid nomination - failing DYK is not a valid deletion rationale. Author requested deletion also seems to be out of the question since there are other contributors. The topic it self, as evident in the sources in the article, or even a cursory before - WaPo 2017, Guardian 2016, NYT 2016 is clearly notable. The article possibly could use NPOVing and the prose could also possibly be improved - but overall seems to be a decent article (I do not swim in the subject matter here - so I might be missing some big NPOV issue - however NPOV is not a deletion rationale unless this is a POVFORK - yet no forked article has been identified). Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per not valid nom. Also article sources and basic WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:08, 4 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. Sandstein 20:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Seth Rogen film[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 17 February 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 February 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it should be Untitled Brandon Trost film... suggest redirect to Brandon Trost, we shouldn't delete where there is a valid alternative and it seems likely that this would only have to be recreated in the future. PC78 (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The thing is, if this film comes to be, it will get a title, so this will not be a useful search then, so this is not a permanently needed lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though it is Too Soon right now, at the very least they’re in post-production and that’s good enough for me. This isn’t some casting notice. Trillfendi (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brandon Trost, or draftify. This will likely be ready for its own article soon enough. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep beacuse it has ample enough sourcing and is in post production. It meets notability in my opinion. TheMovieGuy

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I like this idea, considering that there's some information on here worth saving for when this actually gets a correct article title. –eggofreason^talk 05:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Seth Rogen. A fair amount of work has gone into this article and it references sources, but it is WP:TOOSOON and people, let us not forget, this is an encyclopedia, not an internet movie database. Unoc (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Filming has commenced and concluded, and the article is clearly notable. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film is well-referenced from reliable sources (such as The Hollywood Reporter) and passes NFilm as well with principal photography commenced (and also finished) and a highly notable cast. I do not see any policy that suggests that a film without an official title (that also meets these other requirements) should be deleted (or other option), but I'm very happy to be corrected on that point. Cindlevet (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. The film features a notable cast now, and principal photography has started, so I don't see any advantage of deleting the page, and I don't see much point in draftifying it either. Somethingwickedly (talk) 17:15, 11 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. There is consensus that the subject meets the GNG, and with Bakazaka's find may well meet WP:NALBUM as well. Either is sufficient for this to be kept. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Psykosoul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. It is only relying a AllMusic link, for album rating. Other than that, this album has no chart positions, awards nominations/wins, no televised performances, etc. This article falls under the text "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article". Horizonlove (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep kept at AFD last November where additional reliable sources were identified by @Doomsdayer520: such as a review in Billboard shown here and it was the topic of a Billboard feature article shown here, together with the allmusic review so it passes WP:GNG and it is as much the nominator's responsibility as anyone else's to use those reliable sources to improve the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Is the Billboard source on this page right now? If not, then it would not pass WP:GNG. And just because it has a brief mention in Billboard does not make it notable. As the article currently stands, it still fails WP:NALBUMS. As stated before, this page is little more than track listing. It is also a nominator's and Wikipedia user's responsibility to remove what fails Wikipedia standards. Horizonlove (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, GNG includes all available sources whether they are in the article or not, it has significant coverage in Billboard and Allmusic and should not be removed instead of the process of improving it Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: First off, General notability guidelines refers to WP:NALBUM in this case because this article is about a music album. Second, under the WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." In this case, it does not. And I just read the "review" on the Billboard source. It was more about the singer (Sy Smith) than her album. The only details it provides about the album, in one sentence, are a few songs from the album and its recording label. It doesn't review the album in a positive or negative rating. Even if did, Billboard and Allmusic are definitely not enough to keep this article's page alive. If the album had appeared on any country's national music chart, been certified gold or higher in at least one country, had a reported album sales figure, won or been nominated for a major music award, etc., then it would meet notability. Frankly, this could easily be merged with the Sy Smith article and we could mention that her album received a review from AllMusic and Billboard. Horizonlove (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:GNG is independent of the Albums SNG which is a guide as to whether the subject might be notable so it does not have to meet the conditions you listed, it just needs multiple significant coverage in reliable sources which it has in at least Allmusic and Billboard as the second Billboard article is significant coverage. Also see WP:BEFORE Atlantic306 (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - (Sorry for the delay; I've been offline for about the past week.) Admins should review the first AfD for this album, which will look horrifyingly familiar. That was about 4.5 months ago by the same nominator, HorizonLove. The vote then was to keep, based on sources found by myself and others. HorizonLove has renominated with the exact same reasoning and the exact same denials of evidence presented by the same people who voted last time. This indicates a fairly baffling refusal to accept a community decision. This AfD should be closed for procedural reasons, as a completely unnecessary rehash of things already determined before. My advice for the nominator is to move on. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is to read WP:Vote and then WP:ILIKEIT. In the first deletion nomination, that was very much the case because no one could state how the article passes WP:NAlbums, just like they can't now. Horizonlove (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no need to repeat the same things I have already said dozens of times, unlike some people around here, my final comment is that the insinuation of "I Like It" votes is pathetically easy to debunk. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were also reviews in Ebony [17] and in Call and Post (no easy online version, citation is "Going deep within Sy Smith's 'psykosoul'". Call and Post. March 9, 2000. p. SH3.). Seems to pass WP:NALBUMS#1. Bakazaka (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devil[edit]

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

This article basically covers the same ground as Satan. The rational for giving it its own article is based entirely on one source Jeffrey Burton Russell's book The Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity (1987), which state that a devil is any "personification of evil as it is conceived in many and various cultures and religious traditions." This does not appear to be universally accepted as can be seen in pages 3–4 on the introduction to Satan: A Biography. In addition, the inclusion of other beings that are not Satan as "devils" are either based on Russell or are WP:OR. For example, for Mara, the source does not call him a "devil" or "devil-like" but merely compares a story involving him and the Buddha with the story of Jesus and Satan. The article should either be deleted or redirect to Satan. LittleJerry (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am really leaning towards a very strong keep at the moment, but I must say the nom's argument is strongly reminiscent of an opinion of redirecting to Satan. Thoughts, LittleJerry? Must say though, quite a devillish nomination... J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm so devillish as to not read the last sentence. :) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the argument that the inclusion of other beings that are not Satan as "devils" are either based on Russell or are WP:OR is not very persuasive. I am currently reviewing the article Fallen angel for GA, and my impression is that religious terms which are a mixture of orthodox doctrine and folklore like devil and Satan hardly ever overlap exactly. This is also my impression from studying Buddhist doctrine and history.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "devil" can overlap with "demon" as well. So you may have a point. However that would mean that devil some redirect to the Devil (disambiguation). And anyhow I think Satan works as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. LittleJerry (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry, do you have any Google Scholar or News search results to back up your claims about devil being nearly identical with Satan or demon? Tertiary sources like encyclopedias could work as well.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's page four of Henry Ansgar Kelly's "Satan a Biography" which can be previewed. Also I think the burden of proof is on the people claiming that devil is distinct from Satan or demon. Only Russell seems to support this and this is disputed by Kelly. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is insufficient proof, LittleJerry, you will need more meta-results. Further, the burden of giving a solid argument is on you, since you are proposing the deletion.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farang Rak Tham The article itself does not give sufficient evidence that Devil is an independent concept. LittleJerry (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry, the contents of the article is not an important argument in a discussion like this. Generally speaking, if independent notability can be established, the article must be kept, even if its current contents are crap.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. While the article is not of a FA quality, it is clearly independently notable. Can't even suggest merger to Satan, as Satan is devil in Abrahamic religions. Devil is a bigger concept than Satan. It's like suggesting to delete article on God because we have God in Christianity. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have a Devil in Christianity article in addition to Satan, which discusses all Abrahamic religions. There is no evidence that "Devil" is used for other "evil" beings in world religions and mythology. Only Russell seems to state that. One could argue that devil is also interchangeable with demon. In that case this article could redirect to Devil (disambiguation). LittleJerry (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could discuss more whether devil could be merged with demon. This has some merit. But I'd suggest doing this first through a merge discussion on relevant article's page(s), not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Piotr, that devil is a lot broader a concept than Satan, who is devil only in certain religions. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What other devils are there? LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a broad topic and so is naturally difficult to define and debate but deletion plays no part in this. Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson what about redirect or disambiguation? LittleJerry (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Zero compliance with WP:Before. Many sources out there. This is as content and sourcing question, and fails to even plausibly state a valid reason for Deletion, which is a last resort. We should not inflict the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment based upon a theological or metaphysical dispute. That this may have some overlap with Satan is no reason to delete. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:7&6=thirteen: The next time I see you make a comment like the above, I will request that you be blocked. The OP makes an interesting and fairly compelling case that this article is a WP:CONTENTFORK, and notability has nothing to do with it, so writing Zero compliance with WP:Before. Many sources out there. is very clearly inappropriate, and this isn't the only time you've done it.[18][19][20] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri 88 Go for it. My comments are well within bounds. Pound sand and see what it gets you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article list concepts of the devil outside of Satan. Dream Focus 23:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Devil and Satan are completely different. While Satan is described as "a devil" or "the devil" in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, the concept of Devil exists outside of Abrahamic faiths. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willthacheerleader18, what evidence is there that "Devil" exist outside the Abrahamic faiths? LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRisto hot sir (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unholy Moly! Now, children, there was a time in the very early days of Wikipedia when Devil did redirect to Satan. The early history of Wikipedia can be difficult to trace, but it appears that Devil was probably redirected to Satan on 28 September 2001.[21]. Satan, which originally sat on a list of the "most requested articles" for the first few months of wikipedia's existence, was created on July 17, 2001 by an IP editor. But a separate Devil article was created by User:Netesq on January 24, 2003 and thus has now existed independently of Satan for over *16 years* [22]. Wikipedia only had about 15,000 articles in late September 2001, not the 5.8 million it has today, and only hit 100,000 articles when we finally got around to creating a separate Devil article. And we've never looked back. I will say, however, that LittleJerry's nomination does reminds one of very early Wikipedia for being quite WP:BOLD! Nevertheless, lest we also move Devil Dog to Satan Dog, I must urge one and all to reject this nomination and keep Devil.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, you haven't explained why they should be separate. Only, that they have been for so long. LittleJerry (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LittleJerry, I added something I thought of value to the discussion and not already present. Perhaps if anyone credibly !votes delete I shall return to focus my intellectual powers on the question of whether "devil" is a separately notable topic.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is it not common knowledge that Satan and Devil are two seperate concepts? Makes me wonder what kids are learning in school these days. Unoc (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is crap, and needs to be either thoroughly rewritten or redirected to Satan (since that's the topic apparently almost all of this article's sourced content discusses), but there's obviously no need to remove the page history from public view. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probable keep -- The concepts of "devil" and "Satan" are not identical, but the devil article contains material on Satan, which ought to be merged to Satan. The two are similar in the Christian tradition, but not necessarily in Islam or other religions. It is not a good article and relies too much on Russell and Gnostic Bible, but an article with as many citations as this is not WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron please read my opening statement. I explained how this is OR. The sources they use do not support (outside of Russell) a entity being a "devil". LittleJerry (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and marge Satan to Devil (and not the other way round) or keep as a stand-alone. Yes, this article has issues, and although I'm not a linguist, I do know that most people use the term Devil/Satan interchangeably (sometimes with the article the e.g. the Devil). However, the noun Satan is not English, whilst Devil is (or at least closer to the English language). Since this is English Wikipedia, the English name should be used as per our naming policy. If there is no desire to marge Satan to Devil, then both articles should be kept - independent of each other. This article needs serious editing compared to the Satan article. However, our deletion process is never used to fix editing issues.Tamsier (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it's exactly the same subject. In the Greek Old Testament Job's Satan and Zechariah 3's Satan are "ho diabolos" anyway. The New Testament ho diabolos and Satanas - about 35 uses each - don't particularly distinguish the 2 terms. What would be a whole lot more useful would be Satan in Judaism Satan in Christianity as separate articles with decent references and shrink down literal fallen angel believer J. B. Russell's books to just one of a wider set of sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of the awful POVFORK of Jesus in the Talmud at Yeshu In ictu oculi (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DukeofPanhwa (talk) 15:39, 8 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. Article moved. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe McBee[edit]

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

Actor and musician who falls under too soon. Actually based off the years active-not even sure if this is a real person....(or maybe a autobio) Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the creator moved it to draft right after this. I actually didn't realize it was created just 10 minutes earlier as well (I was looking at reverse order by date and I must of accidentally hit the go by date button so the most recent popped up)

Well still it is too soon. Wgolf (talk) 04:13, 4 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonbinary Sexuality[edit]

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

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

Added this one based on a A11 speedy request by the nominator. Regards So Why 15:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topic appears to be WP:OR by the author. None of the sources mention this or related terms (nonbinary sexuality or nonpolar sexuality). The article states the term was coined by Emma Frye, and the article's creator's name suggest some sort of COI with this person. This user has created a handful of articles all related to Emma Frye. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep searches through Google News and Google Scholar show lots of usage of the term. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eastmain: I'm only seeing a few academic sources using the term ([23], [24]) and some blogs like tumblr. But I see no widespread or notable use of the term. If I'm missing sources, can you please provide a few? EvergreenFir (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use in the academic community is enough to establish notability. The term does not have to be part of popular culture. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether people want to admit it or not, this is a somewhat commonly discussed concept these days. Obviously the article needs work, or at the very least merging. Trillfendi (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only part that's original content is the unsourced opening paragraph. (The remainder was copied from Bisexuality.) The content in the paragraph doesn't match the title of the article - the body is talking about "nonpolar" and the title is "nonbinary". We already have article Genderqueer that covers the topic of non-binary and Google-searching the term "non-polar sexuality" pulls up no hits at all. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but genderqueer is about gender indentity, this article refers to sexuality. Two different things. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a duplicate article exists at Nonpolar sexuality. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which the nominator had tagged for speedy deletion. I declined it since both should be discussed here. I'll add it to this AFD. Regards So Why 15:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever becomes of the Afd for Nonbinary Sexuality, the term Nonpolar sexuality should be neither an article, nor a redirect. The term is invisible on the web, as is its purported author, Emma Frye.
Emma Frye: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mathglot (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible OR without RSes that this is an acknowledged term and independent entity. Unclear why this needs to be a separate article rather than the term being introduced in bisexuality or pansexuality. Reywas92^Talk 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with possible recreation as a redirect to Genderqueer: The scope is unclear, since the title states "Nonbinary" yet the lead begins with "Nonpolar". Given that the article Genderqueer has been treated as essentially synonymous with non-binary, a redirect to Genderqueer seems a plausible search term. I don't think we need two articles on such difficult to separate concepts: the elder article should be expanded and developed with consensus until size or clearly distinct concept warrants splitting into a new article. As this article is currently structured, it overlaps too many existing concepts to stand alone, and has a strong feeling of original synthesis. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion determined that the subject does not yet have the multiple significant roles required for WP:NACTOR. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarjano Khalid[edit]

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

Actor who falls under too soon. He has so far had just one lead role in a film, with the other roles being uncredited and a guest appearance. Wgolf (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough notability reached after his first film as lead actor though.--Nihar POPS (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs at least one more significant role in a notable production with the extra coverage that will bring, it is unfortunately WP:TOOSOON at this stage Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters. No one challenged the basic premise that the character did not warrant a separate article, and consensus formed around redirecting. I have left the history intact to facilitate a merge if that is deemed appropriate; I have protected the redirect to prevent recreation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caerula Sanguis[edit]

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

This character ought to be part of the 'List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters' article; no others have an article, emphasizing the lack of necessity for this one; even the main character doesn't have her own article. No grounds are evident from this article on this particular character for its existence; additionally much lacks sourcing and is bordering on original research (i.e. 'Personality' section) RBWhitney12 (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom — poor primary sources, doesn't require a whole article for this topic –eggofreason^talk 14:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is she more important than the title character of her series? ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters. 24.149.102.47 (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters. Anyone can look through the history of this article and then merge over anything that may need to be merged. Dream Focus 15:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters. I disagree with Susmuffin's argument as side characters can have notability (and sometimes have more notability than a work's main character), but there does not appear to be enough notability in this case for a standalone article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters - not well enough sourced to execute a full merge, but the history should be kept in case other sources turn up in the future --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Battle Angel Alita: Last Order characters - this is per WP:A&M/CHARACTER. She is not shown how she is notable outside of the in universe fan base. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:54, 11 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.