Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 May	17 May >

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. T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny de Jong[edit]

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

No notable news articles with secondary source coverage on him. No notable social relevance on Google. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. HM Wilburt (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no RS fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note please do NOT do PROD and AFD at the same time. You should have done PROD first, and then waited for the full seven days to expire before bringing the article here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is long past time that all articles sourced only to IMDb should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhael Kantroo[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. References cited are from some site called "Glamsham" and written by "Glamsham editorial", or don't talk about him significantly. Being "nominated for Cannes Film Festival 2019" just means that he could have submitted it himself. Google search for his name comes up with fewer than 70 results. ... discospinster _talk 23:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Self promotion, rather than an encyclopedic article. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG WikiLover97 (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject fails WP:GNG, and WP:NACTOR as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kindly see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaibhav Palhade. Nominated a few hours apart, both the articles are created by the same creator, probably a case of COI/UPE. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, self promotion. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alessia Pannese[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:PROF. No significant publications DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that she is an art historian is puzzling. She appears to have a MSt in Literature and Arts from Oxford, but not a degree in art history. Vexations (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vexations: The claim comes from here. I too was a bit puzzled by the whole thing because every other site mentions that she have degrees in veterinary medicine, not art. Yet, Oxford clearly states that she is a part of History of Art Department. Not my claim. :)--Biografer (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Biografer: As you are the creator of the article, are you able to tell us what notability guidelines you believe she meets? RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @RebeccaGreen: She meets WP:PROF #3, that is, "being a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status". In this case, it was EURIAS. Is this organization notable?--Biografer (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that having a junior fellowship, in this case from the Network of European Institutes for Advanced Study [1], is the same thing as being elected a fellow of a scholarly society. The fellowship is not permanent - their page says "Within the whole network, more than 500 researchers are hosted every year for up to one full academic year." That is very different from being "a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor" - the Network is not a major scholarly society, and the fellowship is for one year only, not a status which is conferred on a person for the rest of their life. The EURIAS fellowship (as the other fellowships she has held) are a kind of short-term academic position. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet PROF and doesn't make sense as written. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very early career academic with a GS h-index of at most six. Not yet enough to pass WP:Prof#C1: WP:Too soon. Try again in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I don't find any evidence that she meets either WP:GNG or any WP:NPROF criteria. I don't think the claim that she is an art historian is accurate either - her main interest seems to be in neuroscience, and she has also studied the depiction of anaesthetics in art, the aesthetics of sound perception, etc. WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. --Tataral (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. A fellowship ranks with being a lecturer, not with a Professor. The references are merely to university staff bios. I also do not see evidence of her being an art historian. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rebecca Green.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 20 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Owens (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Never played in the AHL or DEL and upon research, First All-Star in AUS does not qualify for #4. Tay87 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject completely fails WP:NHOCKEY. There are a few articles written about him but all of them are just routine sports coverage, so there's not enough evidence to suggest that he can pass the WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he certainly doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY, and the references aren't strong enough to convince me that he would meet WP:GNG (side note: the refs to the St. John's Telegram don't work, by the way). PK T(alk) 21:25, 22 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Rey[edit]

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

A quick review of the article's sources: the first two are from newreleasetoday.com— I visited the site, and couldn't tell you anything at all about it (their "home" page is a music video... And that's it), and am fairly certain it would not qualify as a WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. The third reference is to a press release, and the fourth ref is to an online Christian women's lifestyle magazine: from their homepage, it appears that their content is generated by their readers. Also, this last ref is to an interview, which is problematic as a source for a biography. A Google search turns up lots of pages of promotional material, but the first few pages I went through didn't show adequate independent writings about her. Google News turns up one hit about a festival in which she won a battle-of-the-bands competition. Does not appear to qualify under WP:MUSICIAN, no substantive awards, has not been signed to a major record label, etc. A loose necktie (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That's a solid job of analyzing sources. Note that the question isn't whether the sources are reliable but if they can be considered notable for WP:MUSICBIO. Page as is fails. Hydromania (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I attempted to source the page, and failed. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. This may well be a case of WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fenn Haven, Indiana[edit]

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

Not an unincorporated community but a neighborhood in incorporated Tell City, Indiana. Per WP:GEOLAND "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." Could not find non-trivial coverage mentioning this subdivision. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fenn Haven is one of several settlements in Indian nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana, which closed as "keep"). Fenn Haven is a "populated, legally recognized place", per WP:GEOLAND:
- The US Department of the Interior identifies Fenn Haven as a populated place.
- The State of Indiana identifies Fenn Haven on a list of municipalities.
- Perry County identifies Fenn Haven as a unique community on its GIS map.
- Several maps at Template:GeoTemplate list Pleasure Valley. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - GEOLAND also says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." None of these establish anything beyond presence on maps, the DOI link citing "U.S. Geological Survey 1:24,000-scale topographic maps". The Perry County map identifies it as a subdivision, not a "unique community", clearly placing it within Tell City, which is an actual municipality. Reywas92^Talk 23:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are excluded for establishing notability. Because Fenn Haven is a populated, legally recognized place, it is already presumed to be notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia serves as a gazeteer and unincorporated communities are considered notable. I did added a citation to the Fenn Haven, Indiana article-Fenn Haven Topo Map in Perry County IN-thank you-RFD (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting ridiculous. If this behavior by nom continues, we may need to take it to ANI or something. Enough. Smartyllama (talk) 14:42, 20 May 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 List of Marvel Comics characters: P. And/or to Power Pack, as editors may decide. Sandstein 20:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Power[edit]

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

Despite a lot of discussion, the article contains no references to independent sources and no assertion of notability. There has been some edit-warring about whether to redirect it to the Power Pack article, so I'm listing it to achieve consensus. Slashme (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'm going to copy over my comment from the merge discussion that had been occurring (and which I hope any closer will take into account when closing this AfD): no indication that Alex Power is independently notable; neutral on the target. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a merge discussion is in process at Talk:Power Pack#Merge discussion with Alex Power. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: P - character is notable within the fiction and meets my criteria for an entry. Too much character development has happened outside the pages of Power Pack for that article to be a suitable target. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with merging--as long as the content is kept in check a bit. As with all these articles, there is just too much unverified OR/plot summary/fictional biography/etc., what some have called "cruft". Drmies (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - very selectively. No real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Drmies. -- ferret (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-voted below after source analysis, still in support of merge -- ferret (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge - not sure why an AFD is necessary or appropriate when an ongoing merge discussion had just been started. BOZ (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect BOZ, if you vote keep "if sources can be found", there's an onus on you to provide those sources. -- ferret (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see sources when I type in “Alex Power comics” so I might see if I can improve on that when I am not busy. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 21:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No enough of significance to be remain well published. Sheldybett (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am agreeing with @Jhenderson777: on his claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some sources that reference the character.

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s premature to put this character as deleted or redirected. He is reprising his role as a a leader of the Future Foundation in comics and a Power Pack movie is in talks which is getting coverage. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like an analysis of the sources provided today would be proper
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis:
- https://www.cbr.com/the-abandoned-an-forsaked-alex-power-is-a-horse/
  - Passing mention of Alex, most of the article is about Power Pack in general. Supports a merge to Power Pack
- https://www.cbr.com/marvel-power-pack-louise-simonson-june-brigman/
  - Same as above, a passing mention in the context of the Power Pack.
- https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/05/15/jeremy-whitley-and-wil-robson-launch-a-new-future-foundation-comic-in-august/
  - Mentions Alex as leader of new comics for Future Foundation comic, but zero indepth coverage. Most of the quote is from a press release.
- https://www.cbr.com/power-pack-alex-power-secret-wars-future-foundation/
  - This one has more focus on Alex, but its not direct coverage or discussion of Alex, just a recap of whats been happening in recent comics.
- https://www.cbr.com/future-foundation-new-mission-and-leader/
  - Similar to the last two, mentions Alex as new leader of Future Foundation, recaps recent comics, but doesn't discuss the character in anyway.
- https://www.comicsbeat.com/new-ps4-spider-man-future-foundation-comics/
  - Another repeat of the announcement of Alex as leader of Future Foundation, single sentence from an official press announcement (Several of these sources quote this same thing)
- https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/we-almost-got-a-james-gunn-written-power-pack-comic-under-marvels-max-imprint
  - This is about a possible Power Pack movie, and only mentions Alex twice to say "he's a member" and "he was later leader of Future Foundation"
- https://movieweb.com/power-pack-marvel-movie-still-in-development/
  - This is about a possible Power Pack movie. Literally only mention of Alex is "as a member" and his age.
Continue to support Merge. No in-depth coverage has been found. We have a handful of mentions as part of official announcements, or brief mentions within broader context of Power Pack, or simply comic recaps. Also all content ultimately relates to the Power Pack. -- ferret (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself at the end. You say the articles are about Power Pack but you say the sources say he was the leader of Future Foundation. Also I should note he was a New Warriors member too. So redirecting to Power Pack is uncalled for. Also you are contesting the sources for brief info. WP:GNG is not always about the info but what sources can be found for the character. Coverage is still coverage. He’s obviously no Spider-Man and it’s uncalled for to put him on that pedestal. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. There's zero indepth anything here. It's literally single mentions, and most of then not even whole sentences dedicated to him. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What about the rest of Power family? Since editors seem determined to pick on this one article. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One AFD at a time. Let's not throw an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument in. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of that essay. I tried my best just to ask a question and not violate it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging them into Power Pack would be pretty uncontroversial, considering how this AfD is going. As far as I know, they don't have much significance outside of the team. I still think Alex should be listed on the Marvel characters list due to his development in New Warriors and FF. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there are some sources, but not sure enough for independent notability. Ypatch (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge, preferably to Power Pack. There's already a section there detailing his activities outside the team. Alternatively merge to the characters list. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: P per Argento Surfer. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Power Pack, per Ferret's analysis of the found sources. I also think it should be fairly uncontroversial to merge the other Power Pack members to the same article without needing separate discussions for each one, based on how the consensus here is going. Rorshacma (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Palhade[edit]

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

After a long internet search, all I could find was non-reliable sources, references to websites that have user generated content, and only one borderline reliable source which in turn is puffed up/paid piece. That too, mentions the subject passingly, along with dozens of other persons.

None of the creations by the subject have ever been released, except for the alleged nominations at film festivals, which cant be verified. There are no reviews from these alleged nominations/film festivals either.

Article claims that two of the subjects creations were nominated for Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Awards, which again cant be verified, and according to their official website, they had 2800 nominations. Being two of them isn't significant enough to establish notability.

In all, subject fails notability criteria for creative professionals. The subject also fails general notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Self promotion Andy Dingley (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self promotion and subject isn’t notable don't even passes the general notability WikiLover97 (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Kindly see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikhael Kantroo. Nominated a few hours apart, both the articles are created by the same creator, probably a case of COI/UPE. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, self promotion. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Name Development[edit]

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The company has some significant accomplishments. its website is down, buy if it was notable once, it sill is. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This reference might help. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source as it comes from this blog post (blog posts fail as reliable sources) HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 19:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 23 May 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 consensus is that reliable sources exist. It would be really beneficial if some of those discussed here could be added to the article itself. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Midi (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND as there is no sourced claim of notability within the article. Potentially WP:TOOSOON as they have only released one single and their first album has not been released yet. WP:BEFORE check didn't bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would agree that this is premature as it's before the album release. However there are two references here already.

Even if there is a call to delete this, it should be draftified instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as together with the two reliable sources in the article there is also this AllMusic bio here which is significant coverage. Considering their album is yet to release until June the amount of coverage they are receiving indicates it could get a lot of attention, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify until they predictably get more coverage when they release their first album in a little more than a month. Pichpich (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage already, with just a cursory web search finding [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know that our encyclopedia is better off not having this article. But I would suggest that despite the plethora of coverage we aren't seeing WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the kind we'd expect to see of a notable entry. And the reason we're not yet seeing sustained is ebcause they've not even released an album yet. But this group is clearly getting major coverage so sure let's have an article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afreen Khundmiri[edit]

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

The only sources currently in the article that are not blogs, Facebook pages or YouTube videos are an interview with 'VoyageATL', which has no byline and is a primary source, and the Aspen Institute website which does not mention the subject at all. I searched for better sources, but drew a blank. Fails GNG and ARTIST as far as I can make out. (FWIW, the author appears to be a SPA who created this page, and a page about her father, and has made no other contributions.) GirthSummit _(blether) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - clearly fails WP:GNG. I'm wondering if it could be speedily deleted via G11? Jmertel23 (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG and ARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found nothing other than the sources that are already in the article, none of which could be used to show notability. --valereee (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CollegeTimes[edit]

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

Non-notable blog whose claim to fame is roughly the same as LittleBizzy, which is really nothing at all. They were the subject of an otherwise unremarkable lawsuit and little in the way of any other coverage. One event which is hardly significant in itself (a negative lawsuit) doesn't equate to notability. I did find several pages of gnewshits but nothing remotely substantial and most of it is a passing mention or "collegetimes got sued" Praxidicae (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only real coverage about this site at all was largely about the lawsuit, and none of the coverage of it ever extended past routine news coverage. A number of the sources talking about the incident in the article are actually the CollegeTimes website itself, which of course are not valid for establishing notability, and the others are also of dubious reliability. Further searches bring up a few additional trivial mentions of the site, but nothing substantial. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vibration of rotating structures[edit]

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

I believe it to be a case of WP:A11, as Klaus Konig is both the original author of the article, and its sources, another user disagreed on this. Either way, I also think the article requires serious work on it if not deleted. Rody1990 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Rody1990 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is notable and has certainly been the subject of many articles and books. However, the content of the article is pure original research, as the WP article and the two sources have the same author. Moreover none source is reliable, as one is a presentation at a forum, and the title of the other (in German) is not known by Google Scholar. Moreover, nothing in the article can be useful for making an article on this subject. This is clearly a case for WP:TNT. D.Lazard (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per D.Lazard. WP:BLOWITUP, since it's otherwise notable. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first source is a report for the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure, so presumably of some technical reliability (albeit not available online - archive bottoms out in 2011 [9]). However, this is still far too much of an OR approach, and can't usefully form the basis of an encyclopedic article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Sheppard (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio presenter. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 19 May 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. (Ignoring the double !vote by Rich Farmbrough). Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Nelson (businessman)[edit]

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

In light of the recent successful AfD for Pauline Barrett, I am nominating others who have received the same non-notability-establishing Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award may not be sufficient in itself to establish notability, but it isn't proof of unnotability either. This holder also has an MBE, for instance, so might be worth a closer look. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant achievement, contribution or coverage - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

'Keep significant awards, head of two important organisations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: chairman of Intertrade Ireland, according to the European Commission "the only organisation which has been given responsibility by both governments to boost North/South economic cooperation to the mutual benefit of Northern Ireland and Ireland" (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regional-innovation-monitor/organisation/intertrade-ireland). And then there's this for coverage: https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-backstop-vital-to-prevent-return-to-hard-border-warns-barnier-36861254.html --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, head of two important organizations, recipient of two important awards. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 21 May 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Korda[edit]

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

no evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found lots of good sources, including this Guardian profile, this article from the Telegraph and this from the Times. Added to article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the requirements of the GNG and WP:NARTIST#4b and c. Solo exhibitions at Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, Grundy Art Gallery, Camden Arts Centre indicate that the subject has received significant critical attention. The fact that the work has been exhibited in public galleries over a period of +/- six years there means it has been noted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
Keep the much-expanded, clearly notable, current version. Maybe @DGG: would revisit and agree, to save editors' time? PamD 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination Withdrawn as expanded. I would not hve nominated the current version. the important public commissions are sufficient for notability, and substitute for the usual requirement for work in major museums, which is not applicable to most of here work. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 18 May 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 Brat (digital network). Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Ruby[edit]

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

No reliable sources exist for this web series that fails WP:GNG. The only source I could find for this show through Google appears to be unreliable. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brat. Currently lacks notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: Barkeep is referring to Brat (digital network). Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvilus willardi[edit]

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

This genus simply does not exist; no presence in any database that I have checked, no descriptions, not in synonymy with anything. As best I can tell, the name seems to have escaped from our List of snakes of Arizona, where it was added for whatever reason, and spread over the net from there. I have removed it from that list [10]. Delete as hoax. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elmidae Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Arizona Game & Fish pamphlet used as a reference actually lists Crotalus willardi as the state snake, with nothing about this alleged species. RobDuch (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry :( --Wesborden (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched for the species name in all citations given; didn't find it in any. Trialpears (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went searching a bit too and pretty much only found what Elmidae mentions. Maybe there's some obscure source out there that wanted a genus change, but we'd need to actually see it first. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possible speedy delete under G3) I also did a quick search and I can only find a book that says that it's there. The book was written a couple of days ago, so it could be deleted due to WP:TOOSOON. However, it could also be a blatant hoax since I haven't found any other sources that mentions the genus. If it's a hoax, then the article should be tagged with G3. INeedSupport ^:3 14:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's the author of the article's fault though. INeedSupport ^:3 14:47, 23 May 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. Nobody killed so not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar National Airlines Flight 103[edit]

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

While scary for the people onboard, this is hardly an event with lasting notability. Fram (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As likely creation of banned editor Ryan kirkpatrick. If not, delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wakil Kumar Yadav[edit]

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

Self-published author without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "References" that works have been published (self or not) are not sufficient. Article lacks content supported by citations ABOUT Yadav. David notMD (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets the wikipedia notability. Wikipedia needs two sources and this article has three valid sources of citation. This article is a public figure as it is about an author and joint secretary of association Purnia. In both the fields this article meets the public interest. It is not advertisement. So keep this article. later on wikipedians will help developing this article with extra valid citations. Wakuxyz (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC) (Moved here from the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Concepcion[edit]

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

Non notable politician. Local Councilor is not enough for NPOL. Lord Mayor is an unelected ceremonial figure head rotated on a yearly basis. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but they do more to demonstrate the lack of good coverage than going an way to support GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Subject has substantial recognition in numerous reliable sources. Qualitee123 (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 12:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Holds a ceremonial position that doesn’t pass WP:NPOL. Best,GPL93 (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do significantly better than this. The notability test for mayors attaches to directly-elected executive mayors, not the ceremonial kind who just automatically rotate in and out of the position on an annual basis — and while Liverpool is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors might be deemed to pass WP:NPOL #2 if the article were genuinely substantive and well-referenced, those words do not describe this article. The notability test for local politicians is the ability to write and source a good article, not just the ability to drop a giant cluster reference bomb of 25 mostly primary sources on a single sentence stating that he exists. I also suspect some form of direct conflict of interest editing here, given that the creator's edit history (including deleted edits) focuses very disproportionately on people with the specific surname Concepcion. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 22 May 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 Kazakh alphabets. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qazaqsa[edit]

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

"Qazaqsa" is simply the Kazakh name of the Kazakh language, written in the proposed Latin alphabet. We don't need a separate article for that. This should be turned into a redirect, either to Kazakh language as an {{R from native name}}, or to Kazakh alphabets, which discusses the Latin variant at length. – Uanfala (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And as I mentioned in my vote below, "Qazaqsa" is not even the Kazakh name of the Kazakh language, written in the proposed Latin alphabet. That would be "qazaq tili". "Qazaqsha" would be the correct spelling to mean "in Kazakh", so you see the name of this article is both misspelled and has the wrong claimed meaning. Selerian (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kazakh language. This appears to be a variant of the same language, not a separate topic. The 2017 & 2018 legal specifications of the Latin orthography bear merging, as perhaps does general discussion of the orthographic scheme. addendum: Merge to Kazakh alphabets, which already describes Latin script, may be preferable. Cnilep (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my vote below, the Latin alphabet shown in this "Qazaqsa" article is not the correct one that was approved by the government on Kazakhstan in February 2018. Selerian (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: 162.17.127.113 and Ravarelative are block evasions of long-term abuser brunodam. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete this extraneous article, and we don't even need a redirect. Because the name of this article is wrong. Qazaqsa is not the name of any language, and it does not mean writing in Kazakh using the Latin alphabet. In Kazakh language, qazaqsha (қазақша) just means "in Kazakh". The name of the Kazakh language itself is qazaq tili (қазақ тілі). Please do not use the term Qazaqsa, it is not used anywhere or by anyone at all, to mean what the article claims that it means. Additionally, the Latin alphabet shown in this article is not the correct one that was approved in February 2018. And any useful historical information in this article is already present in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_language#Writing_system Selerian (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panther (owarai)[edit]

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

No indication of importance or significance. Neil S. Walker (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Japanese wikipedia article shows many television performances linked here and has many more references to significant coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not neet WP:ENTERTAINER - no significant references or performances - the WP:OTHERLANGS argument is not compelling - Epinoia (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 09:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not find reliable secondary sources. No significant coverage. External links direct to Twitter accounts. Does not meet general notability criteria, nor WP:ENTERTAINER. Spyder212 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-known entertainers who are regularly on television and clearly pass WP:ENT. Try this Google search: "パンサー" お笑い. Here is a list of articles about them (mostly their TV appearances) just on Natalie: [11]. WP:N and WP:V both explicitly allow foreign language sources, the article is already tagged for translation/improvement, and the jawiki article claims are easily verified. Bakazaka (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fail Passes WP:ENTERTAINER -MA Javadi (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. Max[edit]

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

no evidence of notability for him or his book. DGG ( talk ) 10:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At face value, he does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR.--Hugsyrup (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not seem to have significant coverage in the media. Does not meet general notability criteria, nor WP:AUTHOR. Spyder212 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the detailed coverage in newspapers in New Jersey, where Max lives, there is an article in something called "Military History Network" that I hope some editor interested in military history will be familiar with. What it offers, that the N.J. articles do not, is the details of his military record, whot unity he was in, and details of his background from which an article that meets WP:BASIC can be sourced. Here: Prisoner in the Bulge. I also wonder whether he appears in any regimental histories, or books about WWII POWs. Searching is a little tricky because he has a common name, his middle initial is not always used, and some articles use "Bob" not "Robert". E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the article is notability, not verifiability though. Even if we could find top-notch sources for every fact about the individual's life, would they meet the notability guidelines for either military personnel or authors? I see no evidence that they would, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise! Hugsyrup (talk) 08:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject, of course, would not have to meet AUTHOR or MILITARY if it met WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SOLDIER, AUTHOR and GNG. Local coverage and the "Warfare History Network" don't cut it. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A possible merge elsewhere can be discussed and decided on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names and titles of God in the New Testament[edit]

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

Names and titles of God in the New Testament was previously nominated for deletion in 2006 and 2007, the results being "keep" and then "no consensus".

Discussion in 2007 was rather thin - I can only count 4 editors getting involved. I can't find any record of discussion for 2006.

My reason for nominating this for deletion is that it fails WP:N. There's nothing to say on the subject: the name of God in the New Testament is the Greek word "theos" (it just means "god") and the title is "kyrios" (means "lord"). And yet it's become overv 80,000 bytes of mind-numbing discussion of words that are not actually found in the New Testament - YHWH, Jah, MariJa, and on and on - and none of them are actually in the New Testament.

Going back to the 2007 AfD discussion, this seems to be all about some obscure battle between Jehovah Witness adherents and some opponents of theirs - and I don't know who is who, and I don't care - over the name YHWH, otherwise known as Yahweh or Jehovah. Jehovah is never mentioned anywhere, and YHWH appears in the New Testament only when it's part of someone's name - the "someone" being inevitably some Old Testament figure.

So, why does this article exist? One editor (at least) feels very strongly that it should, but I'd like to see a justification for not deleting and replacing with a sentence (maybe two) in the article Names of God in Christianity. PiCo (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The 2006 AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, and the 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination). Regards.Tamsier (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and possibly speedily). Far from there being "nothing to say on the subject", the names and titles of god have been the source of much debate among biblical commentators, stemmatologists and students of comparative theology ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]), including the new testament ([17], [18]), and in particular, scholarly literature ([19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]). Just for starters.
I thikn the nominator may be confused as to the purpose of AfD; it is not to not for cleaning articles up, and the basis of their nom seems to be a reflection of their own opinion rather than the principle of notability through verification. This would appear to be a content dispute, and, per the criteria, AfDs may be closed speedily if the nomination is clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course.
I'd agree with the nom that, in its current state, the article could do with a rewrite to take into account the sources suggested, but there's clearly sufficient material to provide for a standalone article.
FWIW, all the stuff in the nom about the previous AfDs is pretty irrelevant, due to their age. Thanks must go to Tamsier for adding their likns though; they should be listed already, but the nom appears to have been malformed somehow? Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 10:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a notable topic, but I clicked on a couple of random references you listed, and one as from CreateSpace. It would be better to list a few good references rather than lots of mediocre ones. St Anselm (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good references are in the article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FTR This version is the one I commented on; the eagle-eyed among you will note that since then, the nominator has altered his original meaning, presumably to intimate that they have got a solid reason for deletion; ironically, all it has done is emphasise the complete lack of a WP:BEFORE search and disguise the fact that the nom is little more than their own research. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment. Of the "scholarly" sources you mention:

- John Avery is not a scholar (he describes himself as a "bible teacher")

- Herbert Lockyer is not a scholar (died 1984, a minister, not attached to any academic institution)

- Jeff A. Benner is not a scholar (has his own "Ancient Hebrew Research Center")

- Andrew John Jukes - his dates are 1815-1901, therefore extremely outdated, and in any case not a scholar (not connected to any academic institution)

- Emil Brunner - possibly passes, but is he really relevant?

- and so on. I can't see any contemporary,. relevant scholarship in these names. PiCo (talk) 10:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite "and so on". There are some good references there - e.g. Jacon Loewen, "The Names of God in the New Testament" in The Bible Translator. St Anselm (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the first 5 links; of the rest, #6 is self-published (therefore not RS for Wikiepdia), #6 is a good source but what it says is already covered in another article (Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament), #8 the same, #9 doesn't seem to touch on the New Testament (it's incredibly densely written so a bit hard to tell), #10 is old and does not touch on the New Testament, #11 has nothing not already in that article on names of Jesus, the author of #12 is not a scholar, and #13 is titled "Names of God in Genesis". In short, the majority are not reliable sources, and the few that are say nothing not covered by another article.PiCo (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources supported by secondary and tertiary are in the article. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreliable source, See WP:RS and this wikipedia search result. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tamsier (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At least I could quote 14 scholars (with the possibility that there are more) that appear in the article, that directly support the appearance of YHWH in the NT. Even more have written on the subject, but in a neutral way, and a minority has gone against. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectable User:PiCo, let's analyze your arguments. I do not see much sense in copying verbatim from the article under discussion, since it is supposed that before being nominated, it should be analyzed in depth.

First of all you wrote "that it fails WP:N", but you are not textually referencing something like "on Wikipedia, notability is a ..." and for this reason this supports my argument. It is not just about contributing your point of view or mine. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to "there's nothing to say on the subject", let me express that it's not like that. So why have different scholars written so much about it?. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally you wrote that "the name of God in the New Testament is the Greek word theos", Can you name who has affirmed that the name of God is Theos?. --Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone reaffirm that: "Jah and MariJah... none of them are actually in the New Testament" (e. g. Marijah in Arklean text), because it was written that "and YHWH appears in the New Testament only when it's part of someone's name". Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if the argument "some obscure battle between Jehovah Witness adherents and some opponents of theirs" can be supported, although it seems irrelevant, since not only the JW have maintained this point of view. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PiCo, no one has defended your arguments, not even yourself. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco, please review WP:INDENT and WP:BLUDGEON. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Jayjg, it is ordered now.Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per PiCo. An article about something that doesn't actually exist, sourced to non-WP:RS, serving as a proxy-war between various Christian groups. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About "serving as a proxy-war between various Christian groups", What conflict can cause the existence of an article?. Theories have been discussed in fields of scholarship, such as Biblical criticism, history, finance, law, medicine, and politics. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This concerns not just the JW, but many traditional Protestant sects. It's been widely discussed over many centuries, at various degrees of linguistic sophistication. The article does need some major improvements, because it's disorganized, needs to make more explicit which views are accepted in the various sects, and needs to discus more the church-historical and theological interpretation. The use of the name(s) of God has of course had a major place in Judaism, and the question 's fundamental meanings are to what extent early Christianity was a sect of Judaism, and which of the Christian sects has best carried on the tradition of the early Church. People have fought and died by the millions over such questions.

For many of us, this is not a question that affects our daily life, but the same can be said of a great deal of Wikipedia. Most forms of fiction talk about postulated beings that have no real existence, but to different groups of us different ones of these are very significant, and very much worth discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The real subject matter of this article seems to be how the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) of the Hebrew Bible gets translated or expressed in the Greek translation of it, the Septuagint. Basically, it is or should be a historical review of different manuscripts and versions of the Septuagint. Since the editor currently adding most of the new material to it (and the one who seems to be leading the side of the ones for keeping it) tried in the past many times to insert much of this material in the Tetragrammaton main article itself, where it really does not belong, maybe all the new material he keeps adding can be better reviewed, vetted, and discussed here. Sure, this article itself, as basically a fork of many others on the beginnings of Christianity, could also be deleted, and the material that passes the muster of reliable sources could be incorporated elsewhere. But as long a this becomes the single/main place where the new material can be vetted, reviewed, and discussed, maybe this would be a good reason for keeping it. My two cents. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previously it has been proposed deleting the article with the argument of "unreliable source", I will appreciate that Roxy, the dog. help us with to establish which sources are not reliables of the 125 that currently contains. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was making the point that The New Testament itself is not reliable by our standards, nothing more. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it was excellent that you support your statement in details, and not only request "delete" without bases. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea at all what you mean. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that you request to "delete" it, and you did not specify why. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am a bit torn on this one, since the topic in itself is a notable one. However, we do have both Names of God in Christianity and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament already. The article is unbelievably bad, so WP:TNT is a reasonable option (even though AfD is not for cleanup), but it is better to merge the good material into the articles I mentioned. St Anselm (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - originally called Jehovah in the New Testament, but for more of its existence as Tetragrammaton in the New Testament, this article began as a POV coatrack originally to 'defend' Jehovah's Witnesses' use of 'Jehovah' in their version of the New Testament. After previous AfDs, and with some degree of support from proponents of Sacred Name Bibles, there has been some attempt to add a few more 'respectable layers' to the coatrack. Despite the extra layers, the core intent of the article still seems to boil down to 'the tetragrammaton isn't in the New Testament at all, but maybe you can kind of see it if you squint'. Suitable material is already at articles such as Tetragrammaton, Jehovah and Names of God in Christianity, and relevant articles can be expanded if necessary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading that the article is almost 15 years old, and it surely has a long history (according [statics] actually it has 1.321 edits, with the participation of 213 editors). In the article it can read that since 1661 the name of God has been included in a bible, and since then there have been several translators that have inserted it, and the views of those translators are not included in the main text of the article. Rather, the proponents have no relationship with biblical translation (Except two persons mentions something, not in direct support of his argument). The lack of manuscript evidence, the failure to establish the origin of the sacred nomina, contemporary writings to the NT, and internal evidence of the NT have led to the conclusion of the thesis of existence of YHWH in the NT. In any case, someone could cite an authors that it has been established that Kurios appeared in the autographs, and additionally they manage an antithesis against the current erudition?, and if so, why would the article be deleted, instead of including those authors in the article?. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concur with DGG above. Also, the articles cited by St Anselm are insufficient to cover this topic. The former is too lengthy and the latter is too focused. - JGabbard (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until I saw this proposed deletion, I did not know God had so many names. The article may inform others. I am always amazed how so many bytes are typed to protect one's own bias. No one changes their mind on religion or politics. Leave this article alone. Eschoryii (talk) 09:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a serious discussion of an important subject - important at least to Christians. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clearly notable subject as per DGG's comment earlier, problems in the article can be addressed by editing rather than deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the primary 'keep' argument conflates the broader signifigance of the concept of Names of God in Christianity with a POV attempt to assert that such names appear in the New Testament.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on your talk reminding you of WP:ASPERSIONS; as for this, it's hardly a NT-POV when at least one of the sources has "New Testament" in its title 😂 ——SerialNumber54129 09:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument asserts a POV position. I mentioned no specific editors. The existence of sources presenting the POV that the name of God should 'really' be in the New Testament despite its absense in all extant manuscripts only demonstrates that the argument's POV nature is independent of any individual Wikipedia editor. The existence of such sources does not warrant an entire article dedicated to the subject (nor a coatrack for it with a few extra layers).--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "New Testament" is not only the Greek sacred text. There is a long discussion for this issue, it is important to be presented here. pvasiliadis 21:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleting as promotional (G11). Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zohar Pinhasi[edit]

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

Article is promotional piece about a businessperson. Just a few passing mentions and nothing significant. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Lapablo (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well I think, the page should stay, the guy is controversial and quite popular here in UK too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.185.170.57 (talk • contribs)

Draftify The article is a little bit promotional. I think the person is notable; I did a quick google search and I do see a lot of sources that has him in it. However, those are merely just passing mentions, which does not meet WP:GNG. I think the article has potential, thus moving it to a draft is preferred. INeedSupport ^:3 12:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP People! According to the tags, there is a problem with the tone I believe. Please give me some time to fix it. References are strong I think. Its Forbes, New York Times, NBC etc Lee-aam (talk) 08:59, 23 May 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. In the sense that while valid evidence of notability has been proffered and has gone uncontested, we apparently cannot easily check it for validity. A merger discussion or another AFD would be warranted if they turn out to be inadequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: DWO Whocast[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast. Only sources provided are either primary or otherwise unreliable. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 06:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - under WP:WEBCRIT (which covers podcasts), and WP:GNG, the topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - the sci-fi magazine refs are not significant - "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," so the assertion that "it is the most popular Doctor Who Podcast worldwide" does not establish notability - I like the way the article tries to establish notability in the lead with, "This podcast is notable because..." - nice try - Epinoia (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nationally published hard copy magazines are reliable sources despite the willful assertions above, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Doctor Who Online - It is not fair to accuse the nom of being "willful" (whatever is meant by this - would you prefer them to be "will-less"?). However, the fact that we cannot access a source does not mean that it does not substantiate notability. The article includes citations in SciFiNow and SFX (magazine), both of which appear reliable sources for this subject matter. Whilst we cannot examine these over the internet to assess them, we know they exist and, per WP:NEXIST, the article is probably notable unless there are good reasons to believe otherwise. If good reasons to believe otherwise are produced, I say we merge this with the article discussing the website that produces this podcast. FOARP (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd support this merge. That page describes the podcast as a "regular feature on the website", so a merge seems reasonable. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !votes all seem to boil down to WP:ITSNOTABLE, hence the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yugpurush Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar[edit]

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

Not fulfilling WP:GNG and far away from WP:NFO. has references to gossip/unreliable/self-published sites. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge to B. R. Ambedkar. It seems to have a list-entry in Ashish Rajadhyaksha; Paul Willemen (10 July 2014). Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema. Routledge. pp. 319–. ISBN 978-1-135-94318-9. but it doesn't go beyond name/year entry. It's not a review, and a list-entry in minor encyclopedia is not the same as an actually entry in (minor or whatever) encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I think, such passing mentions can't be called as WP:RS, as it's just one name in the huge list of other films QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, hence my delete/merge vote. But weak, as the source suggests it is closer to borderline - but yes, still on the wrong side of it since a passing mention is still a passing mention. If it got at least a paragraph entry in an encyclopedia, it would be notable. An index-like mention is not enough.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marathi film, It may have fewer sources but the film is old/cult yet notable enough to have an article, if the decision goes delete I would suggest redirect to B. R. Ambedkar Biographical article of the film's title WikiLover97 (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLover97, Please take the responsibility of pointing at valid WP:RS so that this article can fulfill the requirements of WP:NFO or at least WP:GNG So that, we could establish the notability for this article. and remember there is nothing like inherently notable, WP:NRV, hope you can go through these policies. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many films made on Ambedkar and it's not possible to merge all to the main biography. I believe film has it's own notability and an independent article is preffered than that of a merge. Similar nominations on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bole India Jai Bhim and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balak Ambedkar. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tiven2240, the subject of every article is different so let's keep the discussions different, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiven2240, you might wish to read WP:AADD. ∯WBG^converse 11:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire film crew is non-notable. Many of the actors have been featured over this film, only. The other films by the director seems to be hardly notable either. My searches across Marathi newspaper archives does not reveal an iota of the coverage about the film or its involved figures. Fails WP:NFILM by a few miles or so. ∯WBG^converse 12:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this marathi film is very important and related about Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar.. More information should add. प्रसाद साळवे (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

प्रसाद साळवे, Any valid sources? And remember nothing is inherently notable, please have a look at WP:NRV thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - QueerEcofeminist user is a casteist Person, he just targeting Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Related Articals like Bole India Jai Bhim, Yugpurush Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Balak Ambedkar. just look his history of editing he never help to article. like references or growing. but just ignore and keep article. QueerEcofeminist is also targeting specific user also. प्रसाद साळवे (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per my explaination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balak Ambedkar, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bole India Jai Bhim. The film fails generalised notability guidelines for films, as well as there are no other evidences of notability. Also per user WBG above. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bole India Jai Bhim[edit]

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

Not fulfilling WP:GNG and far away from WP:NFO. has references to gossip/unreliable/self-published sites. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film, of course, notable, fewer sources because the film isn't popular in Huge Marathi audience, Even I also could not find any reference to getting this pass GNG (literally) but this can be kept as old film and article is on Wikipedia since 3 years WikiLover97 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WikiLover97, Please go through this WP:NEXIST, notability needs verifiable, reliable sources. and in this case we lack the sources at all. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt the nomination as the nominator first removed sources than marked itself for deletion. I mean what hurry the nominator has to delete my created articles or articles created by my fellow wikimedians from Marathi Wikipedia, I don't have any clue. Whereas I could like to give some of the sources from well reputed Indian Newspapers to prove notability of this topic. [25], [26], [27], [28]. Similar baseless nominations have been made even in the past like here, here, here and more. Hope we find solution to this repetitive revenging attitude vandalism. Thank you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tiven2240,
- Removed sources were blogs/gossip sites/self-published ones.
- When it's up for AFD debate it's not needed that one should have some sort of hurry or harsh feelings, it's the phase one gets to check the contents and it's the strength, I would request the users instead of cursing and doubting others intentions, one can always go and actually improve the article using valid and reliable sources if they can. @Winged Blades of Godric: you may have something to say here as you were part of the Dixit AFD debate, thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not seeing, as to how this passes NFILM. We seek for at-least 2 reviews in prominent publications of national/regional repute and there exists none, as of now. This is a completely non-notable festival. My searches for regional coverage does not reveal anything. TOI has been long-determined to be unreliable for determining notability in entertainment-AfDs courtesy the sheer volume of pay-for-spam they routinely publish.(I was neutrally asked for my views over my t/p. I also note that the article-creator has been banned for sock-puppetry and the above !voter (Tiven) used to write hagiographic stuff about Ambedkar, upon whom the film seems to be based.)∯WBG^converse 11:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep This film important and article is also important... please KEEP प्रसाद साळवे (talk)

प्रसाद साळवे, Any valid sources? And remember nothing is inherently notable, please have a look at WP:NRV thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - QueerEcofeminist user is a casteist Person, he just targeting Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Related Articals like Bole India Jai Bhim, Yugpurush Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Balak Ambedkar. just look his history of editing he never help to article. like references or growing. but just ignore and keep article. QueerEcofeminist is also targeting specific user also. प्रसाद साळवे (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete — like I commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balak Ambedkar: after a thorough search on this article, and two others, I couldnt find anything regarding this film. This film is about a notable person. But the film itself is not notable. I tried to find reviews for the film, but I couldnt find it; nor the coverage. In this case, the film has not received significant coverage. The film fails generalised notability guidelines for films, as well as there are no other evidences of notability.
Tiven has mentioned four references in his keep vote. One of them is about show details of the film (happens for every film, not a sign of notability), second news is about censor board of India giving release permission to the film. This also happens to every film which are about sensitive topics. The board evaluates the content of the film, if e film would hurt feelings of some particular religion, caste, community or something like that. This one news, is not a sign of notability again. One reference is about the director getting an award for the film, but the award isnt notable itself. The source from the hindu has a passing reference to the film. Nothing conforms notability of the film. Also, per WBG. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Bhimrao[edit]

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

Not fulfilling WP:GNG and far away from WP:NFO. has references to gossip/unreliable/self-published sites. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:03, 16 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Manchala[edit]

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

Non-notable executive. Sole claim to notability is as CEO of Trianz, which is also up for deletion based on lack of notability. Both articles created by the same editor, Freakedout (talk · contribs), whose only contributions have been to promote Trianz. Even if Trianz ends up kept, there's no indication of notability other than as inherited from the company. TJRC (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Invalid^OS (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

406 Express Newman[edit]

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

Nothing spectular about this bus route, just a run of the WP:MILL bus route with routine coverage. A while ago all bus routes were redirected back to the List of Montreal bus routes article and there is no reason why these ones were exempted. Ajf773 (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are equally non-notable:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing remarkable about most of these. Route 439 should be merged into the BRT entry to provide context. Sounder Bruce 03:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. List of Montreal bus routes exists... Spyder212 (talk) 15:53, 16 May 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 action. Article was dratified, making discussion moot. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9LU 137786[edit]

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

The article appears to be a combination of citations to less-than-reliable sources and pure original research. The result is not an article worth including in Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears the user has moved this back to draftspace. It might be best to procedurally close this AfD on that basis. Ajf773 (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page is now on draft namespace. Closing of AfD may be better as mentioned above by Ajf773.--PATH SLOPU 07:32, 16 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logos Land[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill tourist resort/attraction with no citations and no claim to notability. Madg2011 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds a promotional language in article. WP:PROMO--PATH SLOPU 07:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could not find anything notable in secondary sources. Alaney2k (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was created in 2006, a time when our inclusion standards for topics of this type basically just required the ability to verify that the topic existed — but given the amount of unreferenced and unreferenceable garbage that got added because of inadequacies in our quality control processes, we've tightened up our inclusion standards considerably in the intervening decade. We now require much stronger evidence of real reliable source coverage in real media, and this has little to none of that. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 21 May 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. But new sources need to be integrated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Seppy[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not reliably sourced as being any more notable per WP:NMUSIC than she was when it was tried a few years ago at her real name and deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Michalitsianos. The only reference being cited here at all is her primary source "our artists" profile on the self-published website of her own record label, with no evidence of reliable or notability-supporting sources being shown at all, and nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much better sourcing than this. As always, the notability test for a musician is not just that her self-created web presence metaverifies itself: it requires music journalists to pay attention to her in newspapers or magazines, but no sources like that have been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as the nom's argument is sound and sufficient. Graywalls (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even a cursory Google search finds sufficient coverage for a pass of WP:GNG: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. --Michig (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - seems to barely pass GNG, but those sources need to be incorporated in the article. Hydromania (talk) 06:09, 20 May 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. Apparently the notability of the list page itself is not under discussion here (other than Atlantic306's comment), just that of the individual entries (and whether adequate sourcing can be obtained for them) and there is no consensus for a deletion. Article cleanup, talk page discussions and merger discussions would be the next step to address any cruft issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars creatures[edit]

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

Almost nothing here other than porgs or tauntauns has independent coverage that shows noteability. Those two should probably just be merged into the respective articles on the movies they're in. There's a lot of external links, but they almost universally just go to Starwars.com. Jtrainor (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jtrainor (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is the third nomination and the last discussion was a keep result. This go-around doesn't make an argument for deletion; it proposes merger. Andrew D. (talk) 09:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply because merging would make it too damn long. All this article needs is less reliance on primary source. Trillfendi (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Andrew D. and Trillfendi Lubbad85 (☎) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all need to read what I posted more clearly. I'm proposing flat out removing most of the cruft here and just merging the stuff on porgs and tauntauns. Jtrainor (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful list. I agree with nom that the references could be diversified. Also this should NOT be speeded based on previous discussions as the last discussion was more than a decade ago! gidonb (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the amount of information this article has, indeed it would be better to keep it instead of merging. Also, contrarily to the article (AFD) of star trek animals, this one is not as specific and has so much more useful information. Garlicolive (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not slash it as per WP:NOTPAPER merging is a step backwards, this is an obviously notable topic and unlike a blp not every detail of an imaginary character has to be referenced to a secondary source, primary references while not ideal are sufficient if the general topic is notable which it is, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may say it's a noteable topic, but there is no independent third party sourcing in the article to demonstrate any noteability for the vast majority of it. Also, everything in this article and then some is duplicated on Wookiepedia anyways. Jtrainor (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not encyclopedic, this is a a deep dive into fan club material. Almost all the references are StarWars.com. It would be best listed as additional reading, we don't need to duplicate a fan club page here -- 76.186.185.122 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep The nominator didn't provide a rationale for deletion and is proposing a merger instead. AFD is not for cleanup - start a talk page discussion instead. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 18:55, 22 May 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. Weighing the policy based arguments and the counter arguments for the delete !votes, it's pretty clear that consensus is to keep this article. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midway Corners, Indiana[edit]

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

No evidence place actually exists – Google results are all auto-generated. Listing in a names database does not establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana, another of the mass-created stubs. Reywas92^Talk 01:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is the same as This, they were written by the same editor and without question, do not meet WP:GNG.Grapefruit17 (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make WP:2S - according to WP:NGEO, places must meet WP:GNG - as there is no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" then notablility not established - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: Please correct me if I am in error, but the exact quote you added cannot be found at WP:GNG. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: - at WP:NOTE, the first line of the General notability guideline WP:GNG reads, "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." - Epinoia (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: In your comment above you wrote "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", and placed it in quotation marks, which made it appear you were quoting one of the two guidelines mentioned in the same sentence. Am I correct in saying this was in fact your own personal interpretation (in quotation marks)? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: - the General notability guideline is restated in other guidelines, sometimes with slight variations, for example, WP:BASIC says, "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - using the word "multiple" which is not in the original General notability guideline, but is implied by the plural "sources" - but except for slight wording variations they all say the same thing and the General notability guideline applies here too - Epinoia (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A consensus of editors at WP:GEOLAND have agreed that "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history". The following sources recognize Midway Corners:

The US Department of the Interior recognizes Midway Corners.
Shelby County identifies Midway Corners on its GIS map.
Factfinder identifies Midway Corners on its maps.
The US National Weather Service returns results for Midway Corners.
Real estate databases list Midway Corners.
Most maps at Template:GeoTemplate identify Midway Corners as a settlement. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are all automatically generated from the GNIS database and do not establish notability; I can find my own non-notable "subdivision or housing development" on all of thes maps too [34][35]Search "Tremont, IN". The autogenerated NWS link says "2 Miles NNW Shelbyville IN" and the Trulia link is for Hildebrand Village. GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". "Presumed notable" is based on the belief that substantive sources can be found, but none of these have any substantive content. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND per above. Smartyllama (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- GEOLAND says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability". Where are the substantive sources still required under "On the other hand, sources that describe the subject instead of simply mentioning it do establish notability."? Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND. GEOLAND describes inherent notability requiring (except in the cases of census tracts and maps) nothing more than mere proof of legally recognized existence as opposed to the substantial, in-depth coverage required under the GNG. We can demonstrate Midway Corners exists and is legally recognized by its inclusion in the National Gazetteer of the United States of America [36], an official publication of the Geological Survey and the Board of Geographic Names. It's good to give scrutiny to small, unincorporated places to ensure we don't perpetuate a WP:HOAX - and mere inclusion on a Google Map result should be insufficient to prove existence - but this doesn't appear to apply here Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except GEOLAND mentions "presumed to be notable" not "inherent notability". "Presumed" means "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article", but where is the significant coverage? Even insignificant coverage? This could be mentioned in St. Joseph County, Indiana but does not need a separate article. The Gazetteer simply means that it is a name on a map, perhaps as a neighborhood, not legal recognition as a defined area. Reywas92^Talk 01:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"but where is the significant coverage?" - Significance is self-evident since GEOLAND establishes the existing consensus of the community as to how it defines the word "significant" for purpose of geographic notability, that being the mere existence of legal recognition. (Your confusion may arise from the fact that you've linked to the General Notability Guidelines.) Through WP:RS we have established this is a place that is recognized (which is not a synonym of "sanctioned" or "authorized") by a legally constituted authority of a sovereign state, namely the United States Board of Geographic Names; in other words, it is "legally recognized" (again, not "legally sanctioned" nor "legally authorized"). Ergo, the definition the community has set for significance has been met. We cannot apply any more stringent definition of the word "significance" other than a "populated, legally recognized place" within a single AfD. If a better definition is needed, existing policy will have to be overturned and this is not the proper venue to do so.

" This could be mentioned in St. Joseph County, Indiana but does not need a separate article." Simple declaratory statements of individual editors as to what does or does not "need" articles are not valid at AfD. This is not a vote-counting exercise. All arguments must be based in policy as it currently exists. If the policy is flawed, an argument to overturn it will have to be presented elsewhere and, if the policy is amended, the AfD revisited. Chetsford (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in a subdivision called Tremont that has an identical GNIS listing to Midway Corners. Is my little neighborhood with an HOA "legally recognized" and therefore notable? GNIS lists countless numbers of these. Reywas92^Talk 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I grew up in a subdivision called Tremont that has ..." While an interesting anecdote, I'm unqualified to provide analysis of your early life and childhood so must limit my commentary to the subject of this AfD. WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST may or may not be useful to answering your question about the status of your childhood home, otherwise, you might be able to solicit an answer in WP:TEAHOUSE. Best of luck - Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GEOLAND. ——SerialNumber54129 07:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GEOFEAT--PATH SLOPU 07:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability criteria as per WP:GEOLAND. Spyder212 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Northamerica1000: why did you relist this almost a full day before the seven days had expired? Consensus has clearly emerged in the last 24 hours or so, and it would likely have been closed as keep if you waited the right time. Smartyllama (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 12:04, 22 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek animals[edit]

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

None of these other than the tribble (which has it's own article) are particularly noteable in their own right, and indeed, the references on this page are primarily to Star Trek's official page or episode summaries, rather than third party coverage of the assorted creatures. I think this page could stand to be redirected to the main Star Trek article. Jtrainor (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC) Jtrainor (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jtrainor (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the page but not the original content, which was merged from multiple stubs. Not only tribble but also the brain-invading worm Ceti eel has real-world coverage, even though it is unnamed in The Wrath of Khan. The benefit of keeping this page is to give some explanation for animals mentioned in episode plot summaries. Redirecting to the main article would be pointless. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect, as there is no single suitable target. There's no coverage outside of Star Trek fandom. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect per User:Clarityfiend. The article is cruft and better suited for Wikia. Notable enough species warrant their own articles. Any explanation of the animals for episode plot summaries can either be contained within the episode's article or constitute WP:UNDUE weight. Given these factors, there's no general redirect target and no particular content on here that should be preserved, so no redirect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. The content is fancruft from beginning to end and completely lacks independent, reliable sources. There's no content suitable to merge anywhere, or any obvious target for a redirect. Reyk _YO! 11:19, 17 May 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. Either in draft space or in article space, but keep either way Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland Alliance[edit]

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

Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Google News shows dozens of potential sources, though not all are substantial. The article does not at present show the notability , so it should be incubated in Draft. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organization is notable as shown by the economist and things like [37] (which ebsco thinks is peer reviewed) and ongoing news coverage like [38] . With the exception of perhaps too much detail in 2nd and 3rd sentences does not have promotional issues that would warrant taking out of mainspace (e.g. DGG's suggestion of draftify) let alone delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 19 May 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simplify360[edit]

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

Appears promotional, and doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Uses potentially unreliable sources (in addition to a primary source), and does not have a claim of notability within the article (plenty of social media analytics firms exist, what makes this one different?). WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The current article content and sourcing falls under WP:NCORP's "Examples of trivial coverage" and my searches are not finding better. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 17 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titan FTP Server[edit]

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

Notability. It's software, it exists, it's not in a technically novel field, it brings no new innovations of its own. Fails WP:MILL and WP:NOTDIR. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems promotional, which is against policy. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 00:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NPRODUCT. The article is substantially identical to a draft repeatedly declined at Articles for creation. The only change is the substitution of sources in favor of one that warns readers about it independence.[39] Run-of-the-mill software without independent references. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above editors have said it but it it fails NPRODUCT and lacks notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author of this article, my goal was to expand on the Comparison of FTP server software packages by adding a couple of products which I have used - Serv-U FTP Server and Titan FTP Server. Both products have significant time in market and a high number of users. The comparison page is incomplete without them. My additions to that page were removed, citing lack of a Wikipedia article. I've worked on the article, seeking feedback and independent sources. FTP Servers are not exciting products for the press to write about, so independent sources are limited. It should be noted that the Cerberus FTP Server article, the WS_FTP server article and the CompleteFTP article lack any sources aside from the vendor's pages. People do research on Wikipedia, and comparison articles are good sources for that research. If significant options are missing from a comparison article, it's less beneficial to the reader - regardless of whether the additions bring new innovations or are technically novel. The Titan FTP Server article offers several external references, and factual descriptions of the product capabilities. As a user of this product, and past user of other server products in this category, my knowledge could benefit someone doing research. Isn't that what Wikipedia if for? I would like to submit a Serv-U article, as well, but I won't do so until this is resolved. Could someone cite the exact text in this article that seems promotional? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleLes (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources aren't independent, or aren't reliable, or both. - MrOllie (talk) 15:07, 21 May 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.