Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 May	22 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chapstick lesbian[edit]

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

Manifestly non-notable former neologism; now an extinct vogue word. This is getting ridiculous; please salt. Mathglot (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not every cutesy expression ever uttered on Ellen or a thousand other talk shows needs its own article on Wikipedia. Redirects are cheap, but this doesn't need one, as Advanced search turns up sufficient articles to refer to. I wouldn't object to a redirect with full protection, however. Also, not sure if I can add ChapStick lesbian to this report. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The term itself, and attribution to Ellen, is already mentioned in the Lipstick lesbian article. Orville1974 (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is misleading.Silika. O. Silika ^{talk} 17:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, possibly expand the mention of the term in lipstick lesbian Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 05:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NEO in that there are multiple reliable sources ([1] [2] [3]) that are about the term. The term also received significant coverage in this source. It has been used in various books, articles, and scholarly papers. Notably, in this passage that was published in Industrial and Labor Relations Review:

Terms such as “femme,” “lipstick lesbian,” “chapstick lesbian,” and “butch” refer to variations in physical expression of gender among queer women. Among queer men, terms such as “butch,” “bear,” “otter,” “swish,” and “twink” differentiate between gay men of different physical appearance.

each term listed currently has its own Wikipedia article (except for "otter", which is a redirect).

Furthermore, deletion (especially if the article is salted and no redirect is allowed) would only further systemic bias. We allow an endless amount of articles on subcategories of homosexual males (Bear (gay culture), Castro clone, Chicken (gay slang), Chickenhawk (gay slang), Chub (gay slang), Daddy (slang), Queen (slang), Swish (slang), Troll (gay slang), Twink (gay slang)), but somehow a commonly used subcategory of homosexual females is dismissed as a "cutesy expression" and not worthy of even a redirect? --Surachit (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination this text about a non-notable subject, which may become notable in the future; as of yet, it is not. Wikipedia is not the apothecary of slang or neologismss. This is not a lexikon. A Redirect to another, related article, such as lipstick lesbian or lesbian, would not be out of place. -The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 28 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of Canadians[edit]

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

Horrible example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Moxy 🍁 20:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge any relevant info to Anti-Canadianism. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 20:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is essentially WP:IINFO. The sources are weak, and with https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/16/hockey-weed-and-taxes-canadian-stereotypes-debunked, we don't need the article at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE in my opinion. PK T(alk) 20:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the "Taxes" and "Drugs" sections don't belong in an article about "Stereotypes". PK T(alk) 11:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I don't see that there is any material that should be merged to Anti-Canadianism. Unfocused (the taxes and the drugs sections don't even belong in this article, for example) and really poorly sourced. Even if someone can make a case that this is a notable topic I would suggest that this is a case for WP:TNT. Meters (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not encyclopedic and seems to have been written with quality like that of an elementary school English paper.Grapefruit17 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information, with no merge to Anti-Canadianism. I mean, the first stereotype of Canadians listed is that that they are polite. Cold winters are not a stereotype of Canadians, but of their weather. And it's not a stereotype to say that hockey is very popular in Canada; Parliament actually passed a law declaring hockey the national winter sport. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the source Walter Görlitz provided is clear evidence that there are widespread and well-known stereotypes of Canadians, noting that stereotypes are not necessarily things that are entirely true. We have, for example, Stereotypes of Americans, Stereotypes of Jews, and Stereotypes of indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States, which could be used as templates for improving this article. It was created yesterday, it's a bit too soon to throw it out without making any effort to improve it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are profound examples. Stereotypes of Italian Americans merged to Italian Americans#Discrimination and stereotyping. Any relevant information here can easily be moved to Canadians (perhaps not Anti-Canadianism as it does not quite fit). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. I grant that it's possible that a genuinely good article could possibly be written about this topic, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do a much better job than this — but as written, this is neither a good article about the topic nor even the seed from which a good article about the topic could sprout. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ivanvector. Stereotypes of Canadians have been widely covered in the media, and there is more than enough oot there to write a decent article. It's not at that point yet, but the article is brand new – let's give this an honest try. – bradv🍁 03:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A strong aroma of manhandling permeates the premises but we are not here to present or denounce stereotypes. Subjects are judged on their encyclopaedic merits and their notability. If the subject becomes notable enough in the future it can get a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have to go with Ivanvector on this one. The subject is notable...eh. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:42, 28 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. Tone 19:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Perrotta[edit]

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

I see no evidence this person has received any coverage that would be suitable for an article and the rest of the claims are WP:COATRACKy, hinging on someone she worked with being a Grammy winner. Praxidicae (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Google search did not find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and without sources also fails WP:GNG. Appears to be a vanity page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely coatracky, no sources cited (hmm... I wonder why...), and too soon if anything. Trillfendi (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated by my fellow editors above. Orville1974 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources cited. Fails WP:GNG Silika. O. Silika ^{talk} 17:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text created by a kamikaze account and curated by a bunch of others, since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 28 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. Tone 19:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Gold (music executive)[edit]

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

Only passing mentions aside from one Billboard article. This article is unlikely to grow out of the stubby condition it has been in since its 2016 creation. Gold has done nothing particularly noteworthy and is just another manager. N Ø 19:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage outside of Billboard, does not have much notable sources.--Proudpakistani11 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The voting is 2 to 0 in favor of deleting this article, any conclusion?Proudpakistani11 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Proudpakistani11: AfD discussions generally last for at least 7 days. MarginalCost (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As nominator points out, only one reference even comes close to significant coverage - and it's not even clear to me whether Billboard.biz has editorial review to the same extent their print edition does. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, but I just can't find anything else out there to satisfy the multiple sources part of the GNG anyway. MarginalCost (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 28 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 deleted (G7), per below. (non-admin closure) – bradv🍁 19:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Bell[edit]

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

Nice story, but not notable for his Fortnite career and his cancer coverage does not pass GNG. Looks like an autobiography in which case I say - good luck to you and I hope you make it big enough to be notable enough to have an article one day. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has been created by a SPA Caydub16 whose only edits have involved Caleb Bell. Getting cancer and playing Fortnite ain't notable.Dougal18 (talk) 07:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad that he had cancer, but having a sad story is not the same as being notable. Some parts of the article also don't make sense, such as "he joined the team in 2020" - it isn't clear if this is wishful thinking or an error. Nevertheless, he does not meet any of the criteria at WP:NSPORT. It looks like a case of Too soon.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a COI issue as far as I see. Although it's sad to see him die, it's not notable enough for inclusion to Wikipedia. INeedSupport ^:3 15:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, it is an autobiography, you may delete it. I'm still new to Wikipedia. I would appreciate your guidance. --Caydub16 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Caydub16: I feel sorry that you wanted the article you wrote to be deleted. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia though! If you want to create another article, I highly suggest that you post it in a draft article and place the {{user sandbox}} on it. INeedSupport ^:3 18:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caydub16, I agree with INeedSupport. There are a lot of existing articles about hockey players or fortnite players that you could help with. You might also be interested in the Wikipedia Adventure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under WP:G7 on request by author, above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious self-bio fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and any other Wiki notability measure. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:51, 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. Tone 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PeopleReady[edit]

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

The article fails GNG, is self-promoting, and the citations are self-generated or just directory listings. The lack of encyclopedic content was noted in 2012, with additional tags in 2015. Orville1974 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Surachit (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a collection of corporate listings. -The Gnome (talk) 10:32, 28 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. Tone 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. Daniel Johnson[edit]

Search for C. Daniel Johnson: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Fails GNG- the content regarding his accomplishments is un-sourced or self-sourced and the numerous authority controls link to the same single article he published Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a full professor and editor of a notable academic journal, and therefore passes WP:NACADEMIC. Some of his publications can be seen at this PUBMED search and at this Google Scholar search. Note that there is another possibly notable CD Johnson, Charles D. Johnson of Texas A&M AgriLife. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being a full professor does not contribute to NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 12:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. He has enough highly cited papers to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I found one published review of his review book [4]. But there seems very little to say about him beyond the primary sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers - published reviews of his written work, editor-in-chief of an academic journal - there enough to pass NPROF and keep a stub, but agree that anything about his achievements supported only by primary sources should be trimmed. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 27 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. Tone 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thames Estuary Yacht Club[edit]

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

Local social and sailing organization, can't find substantive sources establishing that it passes WP:NORG Reywas92^Talk 16:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. The failure to meet WP:NORG (or even WP:GNG) was was my reason for proposing deletion via PROD, but that was removed without explanation. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NORG is far, fails GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that the sources aren't there - the only coverage I could find other than directory listings was a single passing mention of them in a local newspaper story about water pollution - fails NORG and GNG.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Derry Independent Republican Unit[edit]

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

This article is an insult to history, and should be deleted as should virtually all claims relating to it in relevant articles.

Firstly sources currently used in the article:

Although Willy Frazer isn't acceptable due to WP:SPS (in particular anything relating to Ian Milne who is a living person) I will include what he says for the sake of thoroughness: "Family ties linked those who would form the core of a vicious Active Service Unit centred around Bellaghy. Different permeations of this murder gang continued a reign of terror for over five years and were responsible for over thirty murders. Dominic McGlinchy Ian Milne, Thomas McIlwee and Benedict McIlwee are names which live in infamy in this area". There is nothing particularly useful about what he says. He does not confirm the name of the group, or the actual dates it existed.
Irishhistory.blogspot.com is not a reliable source under any circumstances, so I will not even bother to address any of the claims it makes especially as they offer no sources to support their claims and are contradicted by actual reliable sources.
BBC article on the dead of Francis Hughes is a reliable source, but does not even mention the independent group so is useless for our purposes.
Page 243 of Tirghra is about Thomas McElwee. It contains no information on his IRA (or "Independents" activity) prior to 1976, so is useless for our purposes.
Independent newspaper obituary on Dominic McGlinchey says: "Released the following year [1972], he became one of the IRA's most feared operatives. In the south Londonderry area he teamed up with another notorious terrorist, Francis Hughes - who was later to die on hunger strike - to form a unit which carried out many shootings and bombings". This sentence does not confirm that McGlinchey and Hughes unit was actually independent of the IRA. While it could be argued it is potentially ambiguous, most reasonable people would assume it to mean their teaming up happened in the IRA, not before".
CAIN is the 1994 chronology of deaths during the Troubles, so is useless for our purposes.
An Phoblacht interview with Ian Milne contradicts the basic premise that Ian Milne was even part of the so-called South Derry Independent Republican Unit. It has him born in 1954, joining the Officials version of na Fianna Éireann aged 16, and the "re-organised Irish Republican Army" (ie the Provisional IRA) a year later. This timeline has him in the IRA prior to 1973, and the article further says "Fortunately, Milne was part of the massive escape from Portlaoise Prison a couple of months later [in August 1974]. It was after the escape that himself, Francis Hughes and other IRA Volunteers formed a new military unit. In the following years, they were very active in the Six Counties." So this does not support the claim that Milne and Hughes were both part of a unit independent of the IRA.

Now for what other sources say about the so-called South Derry Independent Republican Unit, or the people who were supposedly part of it:

J Bowyer Bell "The Irish Troubles" page 539: "He [Francis Hughes] had joined the Officials, strong in the area, but left when they declared a cease-fire in 1972 and formed his own unit, the Unrepentants, which was incorporated into the Provos in 1974"
Richard English "Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA" page 198: "Originally a member of the OIRA, Hughes had left that organization after its 1972 ceasefire and had set up an independent unit in his native South Derry. This unit had then been accepted into the Provisional IRA"
Andrew Sanders "Inside the IRA page 156: "Originally from Bellaghy, he [Dominic McGlinchey] was interned in 1971 and on his release teamed up with future hunger striker Francis Hughes to form a deadly new IRA unit, the two pictured on a wanted poster issued by the RUC"
David Beresford "Ten Men Dead" page 115: "When the "Officials" declared their ceasefire in 1972, Frank [Hughes] his friends formed their own group, calling themselves the "Independents. The following year they threw their lot in with the "Provisionals", as it became apparent they had assumed the leadership of the physical force tradition in Irish Republicanism".". Pages 184-185 "He [Thomas McElwee] had been a signed up member of the Republican Movement from an early age, joining na Fianna Eireann-the youth wing of the IRA-at the age of 14. He subsequently joined Frank Hughes' "Independents" and followed him into the Provisionals".
Martin Dillon "The Trigger Men" page 122: "Yet even on his [Dominic McGlinchey] release in June '72, there was no apparent desire on his part to join the Official IRA or the fast-developing Provisionals. Instead he began associating with young men who had not formed any direct connection to physical force republicanism. Two of his closest associates were Ian Milne and Francis Hughes." Although vague about exactly when the trio joined the Provisional IRA it does state that they did, and their activity from then on was IRA activity. It details no armed activity prior to joining the IRA. Page 124: McGlinchey's stint as an operative ended within one year when he was arrested in a house in which weapons were stored. He was returned to Long Kesh and for 18 months made an effort to educate himself by reading and attending classes chaired by Provisional IRA leaders. On his return to South Derry to link up with Hughes and Milne, he was listed on security forces files as someone to be watched." The Argus state McGlinchey's weapons arrest was in 1973.

There is no evidence any organisation called the South Derry Independent Republican Unit (or Independent Republican Unit or anything else similar) existed from 1973 to 1976 with Francis Hughes, Dominic McGlinchey and Ian Milne as members who carried out armed attacks on the British Army, Royal Ulster Constabulary or anyone else. The organisation that verifiably did exist was called either "the Independents" or "the Unrepenants" and the only two named members were Francis Hughes and Thomas McElwee, (note: using "The Trigger Men" as a reference it could be inferred that the unnamed members of the group referred to by other sources were McGlinchey and Milne, but this would be improper synthesis of sources) and the organisation carried out no documented attacks on anyone, and existed from (seemingly) 1972 (or potentially 1973) until 1973 or 1974. In my opinion it would be pointless to write an article using the actual reliable sources since all we are left with is an organisation with an unclear name, unknown size, two known members, unclear dates of existence and no known activity. Mountain Battles (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone wants a shorter, more digestible version of the reasoning above. The South Derry Independent Republican Unit article confuses two different periods of history. The first period was from roughly 1972-1973, when Francis Hughes, Thomas McElwee and unnamed others were part of an organisation independent of the Provisional IRA. The second, much more well-documented period of history, was after that organisation had been subsumed into the Provisional IRA, when Francis Hughes, Dominic McGlinchey and Ian Milne were an active triumvirate of IRA members. Mountain Battles (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The polemic and emotional tone (e.g. "an insult to history") does not help, Mountain Battles. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons above, plus I've not been able to find any real evidence of this unit's existence separately either. Really seems like someone's fantastical ideal of he situation. Canterbury Tail talk 17:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relationship between these individuals is dealt with in their respective biographies. Even if some or all of them acted together independently of the IRA, they were not a formal organisation with a title, and certainly not an abbreviation (SDIRU). The Actions section uses the Sutton index of deaths on CAIN as a ref, but Sutton attributes all of those killings to the IRA, not an independent unit. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The name "South Derry Independent Republican Unit" has not been used even as a cover for IRA operations, as was, for example, "South Armagh Republican Action Force." There is nothing in Holland & McDonald's INLA: Deadly Divisions nor in Moloney's A Secret History of the IRA. There exists (at least) one Wikipedia article ("Thomas McElwee") that mentions the alleged organisation as being the creation of McElwee, offering no sources for that claim. (The article cites two sources for the claim but they are unrelated to the matter.) The same creator who has created both articles has also put up a bunch of others, all related to the Troubles and the Irish movement for independence, and has a declared conflict of interest on the issue at large. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 28 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

José Bibiano[edit]

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

No professional games to meet WP:NFOOTY, cannot find sources to meet WP:GNG. – Levivich 16:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 16:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (May have discussed subject with nominator as part of a list, did not evaluate prior to !voting now however) Doesn't pass NFOOTY, and per my BEFORE doesn't pass GNG (I did find other individuals - an attorney and a criminal - however I haven't been able to connect them to the soccer player). Icewhiz (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL. -The Gnome (talk)
Delete: Agree with The Gnome. Not notable and fails on multiple grounds. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:51, 28 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. Tone 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportsLogos.net[edit]

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

I don't think it's notable as it fails WP:WEBCRIT criteria. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm hardly a neutral party in this having written the article, but I obviously disagree that it doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT. I wouldn't have published it if I felt it wasn't going to meet WP:N. The content of the website—not only the logos themselves but their evolution—is sourced in the given reliable citations more than just trivial mentions, along with articles that talk about the site itself. That's on top of a significant number of Wikipedia articles that use the website as a reliable source (usually to reference logos) and the increasing number of other websites that reference sportslogos.net for anything logo-related and even uniform related. Is it overwhelming notability at this point? No, but there is definitely ongoing and widespread coverage across various media outlets and sports beyond a few trivial mentions here and there. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the go-to site for sports logos, but could do with some more third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional for a website - WP:NOTPROMOTION - Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on account of the reliable sources out there establishing the subject's notability per WP:NCORP & WP:NWEB. E.g. "How Chris Creamer and Chris Smith became the NHL's jersey insiders" in The Hockey News; "Toronto Maple Leafs logo news spreads from Port Perry man cave of Chris Creamer" on Durham's website; "Stanley Cup Socks 1918-2019 : SportsLogos.Net News" on E!; "Greatest NHL logos of all time" on NHLcom; acknowledgements in "Courageously ranking each MLB team's home uniforms" on CBS Sports and in "Every NBA team’s best logo of all time" at Fox Sports; and so on. As to the admittedly promotional aspect of the text, it can and will be expunged as soon as this AfD is over. -The Gnome (talk) 13:44, 28 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Derk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a county commissioner for a county of less than 40,000. Also fails WP:GNG as most sources are either primary or routine local coverage. The closest thing to significant coverage is regarding was the decision of the commission (not just him) to deny a bailout to Boscov's department store, so even then its a WP:BIO1E. GPL93 (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Well write but not notable and fails as per WP:NPOL as a county commissioner. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:18, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County commissioners can occasionally clear NPOL #2 if they can be well-referenced to nationalizing coverage which demonstrates that they're notable significantly beyond just their own county, but are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist — but this is referenced to a mix of primary sources and the routinely expected degree of purely local media coverage, which is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 13:46, 28 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. Tone 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth C. Springirth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as most links are simply to websites where his books are sale. There is little independent sourcing to prove notability outside of some local newspaper articles and a further mostly turned up listings for his books. His only elected position falls well under the bar set by WP:NPOL. GPL93 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to clinch his inclusion on achievement grounds, so the notability test he would have to pass is that he could be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG — but the references here aren't cutting it at all. A writer is not guaranteed a Wikipedia article just because his books metaverify their own existence on WorldCat or online bookstores, but the only reliable sources here are incompletely cited routine local coverage in his local newspaper, in the context of winning election to a smalltown municipal council and winning non-notable local awards which are not WP:ANYBIO passes (that requires winning notable major awards like an Academy Award or a Pulitzer, not just any award that exists on the planet.) This is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete active citizen, railroad buff, praiseworthy life, however neither the books nor his active participation in civic affairs received WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 27 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 topic is notable to the degree that it should be mentioned somewhere. If a good target is found, a merge is probably the best solution. Until then, default keep. Tone 18:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric and the Dread Gazebo[edit]

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

This appears to be an obscure meme. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 03:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, it predates the concept of internet meme as I first heard it more than 20 years ago. More of an "amusing anecdote" if you're familiar with RPGs. BOZ (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point, I would say that it has become a meme. Regardless, I cannot find any reliable sources that prove that this "anecdote" is notable. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cruft. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 23:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. As a member of the AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTAD, I wouldn't have nominated this if I had seen it, but I'm not particularly opposed to its deletion. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:05, 08 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this has (partly) inspired? a play: "Hannah and the Dread Gazebo", that was on 2014 Kilroys' List - list here with description, reviews in Herald and News - "'Hannah and the Dread Gazebo' a play to ... think about .. The gazebo references a place that is neither inside or outside while the “Dread Gazabo” references a humorous video game, “The Tale of Eric and the Dread Gazebo,” ..", BroadwayWorld Los Angeles - "Fountain Theatre Announces 2019-20 Season .. The season opens in February, .. the California premiere of Hannah and the Dread Gazebo by Jiehae Park;" (just a listing), Playbill - ".. The world premiere of Jiehae Park's Hannah and the Dread Gazebo will also be seen in 2017. Directed by Chay Yew, the new play is described as such: ..", American Theatre - "The New Play’s the Thing: As part of this special issue’s exploration of the state of the new American play, we wanted to highlight some of the most exciting works of theatre written within the past five years. So we asked a group that champions new work, dramaturgs and literary managers across the U.S. and Canada, which productions they were most looking forward to this season. EMILIA LAPENTA, literary director, McCarter Theatre Center, Princeton, N.J.: This season is brimming with exciting projects: It’s difficult to choose even a handful of standouts! .. and Jiehae Park’s inventive Hannah and the Dread Gazebo (the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, March 29-Oct. 28, 2017).", KLCC (FM) - "Ashland Theater Review: Hannah and the Dread Gazebo", Theatre Journal - "OREGON SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL .. In Hannah and the Dread Gazebo, Jihae Park offered a breathtaking comedic meditation on loss and inheritance, riffing on a Korean origin myth." (so just a snip), Mail Tribune - "OSF's powerful 'Hannah' packs punch" (review), Willamette Week - "Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s Most Ambitious Play Features Kim Jong-Il and A Maimed Bunny" (review), Seattle Gay News - "They've got rhythm, they've got music at OSF .. Hannah and the Dread Gazebo" (review), actually this may mean that this play is notable for an article so it could be a merge/redirect target. (apologies for textwall, i sometimes get carried away:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep the play, plus sources like [5] and apparently [6] discuss it. Lots and lots of coverage in less reliable sources (art for sale based around this, etc.) which makes me think it is something we should be covering. All that said, I'd not object to a merge if someone can find a good target. Hobit (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If the play is notable, then this article should be a redirect page. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or if the play is barely notable (and reading, I think it is more than that) then it might be good to cover both in the "parent" topic. Not sure. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, per Hobit. BOZ (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Parsai[edit]

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

Per another user. It was unreasonable to CSD this, as all info seems to be properly referenced. Taking to AfD. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 15:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I only nominated due to the CSD. Nominator didn't provide rationale, seems properly referenced and somewhat notable. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 15:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references here are all primary sources that do not constitute support for notability. People do not get Wikipedia articles just because they have staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers — notability is measured in terms of reliable source coverage about the topic in media, not just the ability to use his own self-created web presence as technical verification that he exists. If you want to make him notable enough for an encyclopedia article, what needs to be shown is that journalists have written content about him in newspapers or magazines, not just that his own employers have staff directories. The rule on here is not that as long as the article says things that sound potentially notable, the references can be just any random web page you can find — the notability test is the extent to which he has or has not been the subject of journalism. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I had already put a CSD tag on it but Lafayette Baguette removed it and decided to bring it to AFD stating its notable and properly sourced. I will still stand on deleting as it fails WP:BASIC. Lapablo (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single independent reliable source. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all that my searches turn up are some opinion columns in local papers like the Chatham Daily News; Chatham, Ontario. Fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:50, 27 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Leonard[edit]

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

Fails NPERSON. Notability is not inherited from broadcasting on a notable news station, and sources are not independent (from her agent's website). Nothing significant from WP:BEFORE. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 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 redirect to List of earthquakes in 2019. Tone 18:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ecuador earthquake[edit]

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

May not meet WP:EVENTCRITERIA B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:EFFECT, WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU 07:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shows no sign of "enduring notability" per WP:EFFECT - just a news story, per WP:NOTNEWS. Mikenorton (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies GNG & GEOSCOPE, too early to tell for potential EFFECT in academia. This is the strongest earthquake of 2019 so far and is a decent contender for remaining in this position. Daß Wölf 00:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only sources that I can find are either on the day of the earthquake or in one case the day after - this suggests that this event fails the requirement for WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I also note from WP:GEOSCOPE "Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article." I have removed all the uncited material from the article, which doesn't leave a lot. Being the largest earthquake in a year doesn't make it notable - there was another 7.5 event on 14 May in Papua New Guinea, and analysis of the previous 20 years suggests that a larger event is very likely to occur (all of those years have M>7.5 earthquakes). Mikenorton (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2019. A stub with little chance of expanded coverage. Sounder Bruce 20:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a definitive source to the article for the effects of this earthquake from the relevant Ecuadorean government agency. All of the examples shown in this final situation update are of minor damage and in the details of affected educational infrastructure (81 of them), all are listed as having level 1 effects, which in my understanding means light damage only. Mikenorton (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of earthquakes in 2019 Even with the sources, it's not notable enough for a stand-alone article. It is notable enough to be included in the mentioned article though. INeedSupport ^:3 13:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is because it has no lasting effect. INeedSupport ^:3 13:28, 28 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. Withdrawn by nominator, appears the issues with the article have been fixed by various participants, so while it is not the same article we started out with, it is now a more accurate one. How about that! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck (unit)[edit]

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

Another almost certainly bogus entry from the ever-unreliable Cardarelli book. No supporting evidence has been produced since the (orphan) page was created, but there is a clue to the actual origin here: User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli#Stuck_(unit). This is not an English word for a unit, but a German word (Stück) meaning "item", and used for counting commodities rather as "piece" is in trading English. The German Wiktionary entry, likely to be more comprehensive than the English one has no mention of Stück having a special meaning for wine. The quote from the British parliamentary proceedings of 1875 [7] suggests that the writer was not necessarily clear on what Stück means, and that was only the beginning of the confusion. @Reyk: Thanks for pointing this out. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per the well researched and argued nomination. Another howler from the discredited Cardarelli book. It's very clear what's happened here: back in the 1870s a German winery sold hock wine at such-and-such a price per piece (per Stück) and those containers happened to be around 260 gallons. That doesn't make Stück a unit of volume, any more than selling fun size candy bars makes "fun (unit)" a unit of weight totalling 21g. Reyk _YO! 07:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reyk suggested the nomination here and in other conversations with the nominator and so their fulsome praise for the nomination without declaring their own part in the matter is improper canvassing/collusion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked or suggested that Imaginatorium take this to AfD. That is a lie. If you think I've done anything improper you know the way to ANI. Otherwise, quit trying to poison the well. Reyk _YO! 07:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cardarelli is a respectable and reliable source, as recommended by NIST. The unit in this case is confirmed by other compendia of weights and measures such as Jerrard and The Economist's World Measurement Guide. The unit is a customary size of barrel and its specialist use in the production and trade of hock is confirmed by numerous sources including:

Hyatt's Handbook of Grape Culture
The Horticulturist
How We Weigh and Measure
The Economist desk companion
Ridley's Monthly Wine and Spirit Trade Circular
Encyclopedia of Wines & Spirits
Hotel Monthly
Wine, the Vine, and the Cellar

The latter explains that the word does originate from the German stück (piece) but that's not a reason to delete because the names of many customary units have a prosaic origin, e.g. foot (unit) and stone (unit). It says that the unit is "everywhere the same gauge" whereas the aum (a smaller barrel) varied in different regions of Germany. Such details can be used to expand and improve the topic per our editing policy. See also WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the bar is for "reliable". The investigation that Imaginatorium did into the book's "Old Japanese units of weight" shows Imaginatorium and me that this is not at all a reliable source. Are his and my standards for reliability skewed somehow, or are they unrealistically high? Is this book perhaps taken seriously merely because at the time of its publication (and for all I know even now) no other book in English had a similar ambition? There is at least one other book that does have a similar ambition; unfortunately for most people here it's in Japanese, but anyway it's 『単位の辞典』, by an actual metrologist. (A glance at the Japanese website of a multinational retail monopolist also shows interesting-looking Japanese-language alternatives, but I'm unfamiliar with any of them.) The Roman-letter index to the 4th edition of this book shows no "stuck", "stück" or "stueck". Its absence of course doesn't condemn it, but it does hint. ¶ That's an impressively long list of sources for the term's "specialist use in the production and trade of hock"; could you please quote an impressive example among them? I'd like to see signs of care, rather than unthinking recycling of factoids read elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Jerrard repeats the Salmarazd blunder from the Cardarelli book. This proves that Jerrard has merely cribbed lots of sketchy content from Cardarelli. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I have the 2nd edition of Jerrard and McNeill, pub. 1964 by Chapman and Hall, copyright the authors. But the latest edition is produced by the unreliable Springer. So be careful using the authors' names, since this is not theirs. ¶ I also would really like a quote from each of the sources listed above; if there really is a standard wine barrel size referred to in English as a "stuck", it should be added to the article on wine barrels. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was discussed in a bundled AfD (closed as no consensus). This is to alert contributors there who have not commented above: Alex Rosenberg, AstroCog, Christian75, Dream Focus, Edwardx, Guerillero, Hoary, JTdale, JohnBlackburne, KTo288, kikichugirl, Milowent, NebY, Necrothesp, NorthAmerica, PianoDan, Purplebackpack89, Randykitty, Shevonsilva, Sitush, VQuakr, War wizard90, Pax. Johnuniq (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles must satisfy WP:N and WP:NOTDICT. The obscure sources above are copies of each other with the same fundamental flaw as Cardarelli, namely a desire to have a bigger list than anyone else, so anything resembling a unit ends up being included. Johnuniq (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So all these major publishers made a mistake, but some random person on the internet figured it all out? Wouldn't they update their books with corrected information if that were true? I found a book published in 1877 about wine uses this measurement on page 27 "He had become possessed of half a stuck (about 750 bottles) of really fine Steinberg Cabinet" and on the book's page 377 "about 40 tuns(stuck) of wine, each of 240 gallons." http://public-library.uk/dailyebook/Wine%20and%20wine%20countries%20-%20a%20record%20and%20manual%20for%20wine%20merchants%20and%20wine%20consumers.pdf Also in the chapter titled WINES OF GERMANY on page 91 "The use of these large casks has been discarded for many years, as it was found that the wines did not mature in them so well as in smaller ones. Those now in use are called "stuck," and contain about seven ohms, of thirty gallons each." Each time the word is used stuck has the double dot over the letter u, but copying and pasting that in Firefox turns it into a regular letter u. Dream Focus 11:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The purported English word "stuck" is not the same as an intended German word "Stück"; so far I have only seen evidence of use of the apparent German, typically written properly (italicised). Perhaps this is indeed a German usage... I don't know, but I do not think we can use Cardarelli (the book, not the man) to answer such questions. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's original research going on behind the nomination here, which is fine, but I'm not aware of any secondary source that has concluded this unit is invented or does not exist, despite being referenced in multiple books. So, our sourcing suggests the unit does exist, but may be obscure. Many words are coined out of misinterpretations of other languages. But as to this AFD, is there really enough to have a separate article on this unit? Our goal as an encyclopedia is to serve our readers, and a one-sentence stub on this obscure unit does not strike me as useful to readers. It provides no context in this format. As I commented in the 2015 bundled AFD, shouldn't this be redirected to some list of related sizes (just as our sources do it)? An analogy might be List of English terms of venery, by animal; most of these terms are not actually used [8], but they do exist.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, "Stueck" means "piece" in German, but this does not make it not a unit if the references say it is one. It is quite possible that this began as a misunderstanding (if that's what it was) but became a customary unit later. For example you can see it being used as a unit here in 1972 and here in 1864. In fact, since it appears to have been used as a unit in the 1860's it's origin cannot have been in the 1870's. At the very least references show it being used as a unit more than a hundred years before Cardarelli, so it cannot be any mistake on their part. PS - as for the matter of whether this and many other articles about customary units should be moved to Wiktionary, I think that's a matter for another discussion. FOARP (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not really part of this afd but anyway .. from nominator, and some editors above - "ever-unreliable Cardarelli book", "discredited Cardarelli book", "same fundamental flaw as Cardarelli", i hope they will be culling this apparently spurious source from wikipedia ie. from Jeroboam (unit), Skein (unit), Gilbert (unit), Puncheon (unit), Flask (unit) - their only source, List of obsolete units of measurement, Unit of length, Centimetre–gram–second system of units, plus 80+ others. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeroboam was redundant to Wine bottle#Sizes, so I redirected it there. Reyk _YO! 11:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As some discussions were conducted about Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights and Measures, I re-mention the reliability check carried out by National Institute of Standards and Technology: link: https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Reference/faq.html Shevonsilva (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shevonsilva: "reliability check"?? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references for the article and now we can keep it. thanks. Shevonsilva (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak TNT delete Both Imaginatorium and FOARP are right on the substance; the problem is that even if what FOARP says is correct, we can't use it to fix the article and expand it beyond a useless, and misleading, substub without more reliable secondary sources. Imaginatorium's analysis of the bogus Cardarelli book's coverage of Japanese units is, AFAICT, accurate, which makes me extremely loath to trust it on stuff that isn't Japanese. We have the same problem with "Harvard University Press"'s Japan Encyclopedia, a completely ridiculous work that very few legit scholars actually looked at closely enough to see the problems, and the NIST source and others seem to have fallen into the same trap as most of the "reliable secondary sources" cited in our Japan Encyclopedia article (which was created in response to me bringing the book to RSN because I noticed the problems with it -- fortunately in that case at least one legit scholar in the real world had also noticed the problems). I am not opposed to the recreation of an article on this subject if reliable secondary sources actually discussing the problem can be located. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I really suspect the claim of Weak TNT delete as apparently this is not a copyright violation or extensive cases of advocacy or undisclosed paid sock farms. I really suspect non-scientific methodology here based on personnel assumptions on units. Some authors of the resources mentioned in the article are scientists and refuting their claims needs a more scientific approach. Approving NIST is unreliable also needs more scientific approach. I appreciate Imaginatorium's work as he/she placed a lot of effort as a Wikipedia contributor, but, his work is much more un-reliable as there is a lot of personnel opinions are still there in his work. Somehow his/her work is leading to improving the articles. Japanese units are separate issue which is not relevant to this unit. Shevonsilva (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shevonsilva: I think you should refrain from engaging in discussions like this until your English ability improves. I can pretty much figure out what you are trying to say, but almost none of it has any connection to my comment to which you are responding, which implies you didn't actually understand what I was saying. There was nothing in my comment about copyright violation or sock farms, and in cases like the above NIST remark I never talk about sources being "unreliable in general" but merely "wrong on this or that fact". there is a lot of personal opinions has nothing to do with what I wrote -- I said that he appears to be right (no opinions here; it's a question of factual accuracy) on at least some, and probably most, of the Cardarelli criticism. Japanese units are separate issue which is not relevant to this unit also makes no sense in this context; if a source is too old and makes too many errors, we can't hang an article on it, even if many of the errors are concentrated on a separate but closely related topic. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shevonsilva: I can't really understand what you are trying to say either, but you appear to accuse me of "unreliable work". Perhaps you could explain what this means (keep it to two sentences max.) and either justify it, or withdraw the remark and apologise. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just fancy that, no. 37 Well, User:Shevonsilva added a couple of references to the article. One is "Jerrard", which is meaningless, since it is just Springer copy-pasting. The other is a new(!) superbig(!) "Dictionary of units", this time in three volumes, a total of around 2600 pages, and roughly $US400. The author is Jan Gyllenbok, a stub created by a SPA in 2018, the year of publication of this book, but who was previously mentioned in Historical metrology, itself a page with a curious history. Anyway, I can't help looking for his version of Japanese units, and wow is it wonky?! A series of purported weights based on the Imperial system, and based on a source called "CARD" has the following sequence (in bold; items separated by slashes; the apostrophe is clearly a left-quote): its ‘ko-koo / itho / ischo / its-go / pun / rin... apart from 'rin' this is more, new, garbage. ¶ But back to "Stuck": Cardarelli writes "stuck (hock)"... Gyllenbok reads this as "stuck or hock", and adds "for spirits". Hmm. More updates to follow... Imaginatorium (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, more sketchy Ctrl-C Ctrl-V trash that repeats the blunders in Cardarelli. Not independent sources. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concerns. Reverted the unreliable change made and added more references to remove the doubts. We can further expand the article now too. Shevonsilva (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the other Springer references because they are not even independent, and they show nothing, other than that the latest author Gyllenbok cannot even understand what "Stuck (hock)" means. I explained this, so you do not get to claim "no evidence". I will remove these again. Do not put them back unless you can respond to what I wrote. (You claimed along the way that you thought you are "more qualified" in English than I am; perhaps you could find another similarly "qualified" person who could explain to me what you are trying to say.) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update from nominator. I would like to withdraw the nomination; many thanks for those of the responses that are constructive. It is clear that this term exists, or rather that really the German term exists (so it isn't a "UK unit"), in various degrees of anglicisation. I have replaced the text with a stub, including a picture of a Stückfass; I'm not sure how to include some examples of use in (mostly) old books. But I think this should redirect to an article on the various German cask sizes. I very much support User:FOARP's point that WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia on topics, not a dictionary of obscure headwords. ¶ I can't immediately see how to go about "withdraw", but I hope someone else can help. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Really appreciate your generosity and constructiveness. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, I also consider it will be better to close the discussion. I have added citation needed template and you or someone else can add some references later as a constructive process. Shevonsilva (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as existing (at least in German), a topic has to satisfy notability and an article has to be more than a dictionary definition. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources. No compliance with WP:Before. Article and sources is improved from what it was when nominated for AFD. The niff nawing about the reliability of the sources ignores the many books, publishers, and assorted sources that exist, including those mentioned above. the sources mentioned by Andrew D. should be added to the article. In any event, that is a topic for discussion at the article's talk page, not a reason to delete. Meets WP:GNG

The removal of sources in the middle of this AFD discussion is simply an attempt to arrive at a result by indirection that which you cannot achieve by direction. It is a Self fulfilling prophecy regarding notability and lack of sources."There are no sources, so it must be deleted." Ipse dixit doesn't cu8t it here.

That the nominator has blinked (withdrawn) should have some weight here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of all these AfD nominations based on the premise that Cardarelli is an unreliable source. Finding a mistake in Cardarelli does not mean that suddenly the entire work has to be thrown out. No scholarly source has been put forward that criticises Cardarelli in any way, or even pointing out any of the claimed mistakes. I am especially concerned that it is now being argued that the highly regarded academic publisher Springer is also unreliable due them once being fooled into publishing hoax articles. The IEEE, also highly regarded, was also taken in by the same hoax. I note that the evidence offered above for this is an article in Nature, which merely reports that the offending articles had been withdrawn, not that the publishers were now considered intrinsically unreliable. Ironically, it was Nature, the premier science journal in the world, that published one of the most famous hoaxes of all time – Piltdown Man. Frankly, if we are to reject every book or article that comes from a publisher that has ever been taken in by a hoax, or has published an article with an error, we won't be left with much in the way of sources at all.

The idea that sources that put the unit in italics are to be rejected is just out-and-out nonsense. Sure, that might show that the source considers it to be a foreign word, but so what? It still is a unit and being a foreign unit does not detract from its notability on English Wikipedia. Finally, the Journal of the Society of Arts uses takes the German "stück" to be 1200 litres. This article is from 1873, so clearly is not copied from Cardarelli, it clearly uses the word to mean a unit of volume, not piece, and is clearly a reliable source, although doubtless they have been taken in by a hoax sometime in their history. SpinningSpark 23:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the nominators withdrawn nomination. WP:NOTPAPER WP:PRESERVE. Meets WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 01:34, 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) 14:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Golf[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. It was WP:TOOSOON to create the article and it shows: nothing to be heard about this since it was announced in 2009. Besides this MTV reference included, there is nothing else (Destructoid, Deadspin articles that can be found by a google search just cite the MTV one) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The subject is neither news nor notable. It's a project "in development" since 2009; nothing more complicated than a video game, either. A case of "never gonna happen" more than WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 13:54, 28 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) 14:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ece Alkim Erece[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCHESS. Winning the European Chess Championship at the under 8 year old level is not sufficient to become notable. No results at notable senior events yet, no FIDE title as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps her accomplishments taken together add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? She has no major results beyond the U14 level, there are thousands of chess players of a higher level, there are plenty of better chess players in her own country. While her early results are of course an indication of talent and are an accomplishment, they would not be an indication of notability in other sports. We e.g. don't have articles on U12 champions in tennis, athletics, soccer, ... even though those often have multiple titles or medals as well. Fram (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the chess and general notability guidelines. I cannot find any secondary coverage outside of routine tournament results. This article is WP:TOOSOON - she may develop into a notable chess player but she does not have the results yet.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A chess prodigy who did not follow up on her early successes, with consequently a dearth of sources supporting notability. A case of "too late" more than WP:TOOSOON, most probably. -The Gnome (talk) 13:48, 28 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) 07:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Europa[edit]

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

As mentioned before, I have the feeling that the page is self-promoting at a certain extent and despite improvements (a promo video ad?)
The claimed membership of this political organization remains unverified, 25.000 people; the so-called sources would be a local Italian newspaper and a national English newspaper which says the political organization claims to have that membership; on its own website there's no mention of any membership whatsoever
User Venz87, a contributor to the page, seems to be the president of this political association according to its own website, alias Andrea Venzon born in 1987; but of course, just an assumption
there are no elected members at any public level of any country where it participates to elections; an anonymous suggested in the discussion page to wait for the result of the next European elections, but my logics (which might well be wrong) brings me back to the logic that this article could be used indeed as a promo, rather than an encyclopedia content
I leave it up to you for discussion -- Torne (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of those are reasons to delete the article. Take it to the talk page and be WP:BOLD Kleuske (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kleuske, in your opinion which are valid reasons for the deletion of a so-called political organization? -- Torne (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Torne: the typical deletion reason is lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If fact, you were supposed to check this WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Finnusertop, thanks for your feedback. Obviously I did, and I think there's definitely a lack of coverage around newspapers, news, books and various outlets related to the topic, mainly political. You can verify it easily yourself, and I invite anybody else to do the same.
I'm happy I called the main contributors of the page to express their opinion here (basically all the ones which are advising to keep), they think the topic is well covered around, I question that. My conclusion is that Volt Europa is known almost exclusively from those who somehow deal with it daily and not to a wider audience.
I forgot a mention to Kleuske, I don't see any need to be bold in the discussion page, because I don't see the purpose for the article's discussion page to exist altogether.
One final remark, as I said I was glad to call in the main contributors to the article, I just wish more opinions would be expressed in order to have a strong and neutral discussion. Thanks once more -- Torne (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That pan-European party is running for elections in several countries at once, it's currently in the media every single day (which would be impossible without a decent amount of members), and the fact if their president is also editing on Wikipedia or not is hardly relevant. Dracona94 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there does not seem to be any reason either stated or unstated to delete this. The party exists and is in the news. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Party is running for elections in 8 countries, already appears in opinion polls. Furthermore it is notable suing the German election information online tool Wahl-O-Mat (over 6 million users). The tool was subsequently taken offline. WolreChris (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there is plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a huge amount of media coverage around the party. Franco-German TV network Arte for instance did a documentary on Volt. There are plenty of radio shows and podcasts and also more than 207.000.000 results for "Volteurope" on Google. --Colofonius (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Right now it looks like they won at least one seat in the European Parliament. Wefa (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would you delete an article about a political party simply because the article is poor quality? (It legitimately is a poor-quality article - the first sentence is meaningless.) Kennethmac2000 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Party has gained at least 1 EP seat in Germany yesterday. It has shown to be relevant now. The article must be rewritten, not deleted. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reviewed most of the 47 sources; a few seem to make this sufficient for GNG. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 08:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be pruned, but there's at least a stub's worth of content. Banak (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party just won a seat in the European Parliament. --Rasdus (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any political agitation or NPOV breaches can and should be edited out and any badly sourced claims should definitely be deleted, but this doesn't require deleting the entire page. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia already has plenty of articles on political parties that don't have any national or supranational representation, I don't see how this one is any different. If it's notable enough, it warrants an article IMO. Plus, for better or for worse, they just won a seat in the EU parliament. Goodposts (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has lots of coverage, as well as an MEP. Greenleader(2) (talk) 14:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has an elected MEP, the article will obviously be light on detail but it's significance renders it a keep. --Hermit20xx 17:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. St. Alex (talk) 00:29, 28 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. Tone 14:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings in the Dark[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL, not released so it's difficult to assess on WP:NFILM. SITH (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMOTIONAL and WP:TOOSOON Lubbad85 (☎) 20:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFILM. Jumping the gun again, are we? -The Gnome (talk) 13:56, 28 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 deleted by Boing! said Zebedee, per CSD:A7. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 18:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Rehill[edit]

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

Kleuske (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable: One source is an obituary on someone else, and the other is self-published. Orville1974 (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Weak Delete - WP:JUDGE does not indicate municipal judges are usually notable, and I could find no further sources indicating notability. I was considering bringing this to AfD myself. However, his involvement in at least one relatively high profile case [9][10] leaves me open to the possibility I've missed something, but I can only find passing mentions. MarginalCost (talk) 13:27, 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. Tone 14:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katsiaryna Beinenson[edit]

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

Youth chess player who lacks at the moment the required notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, doesn't meet the project notability guidelines Wikipedia:NCHESS. A Women FIDE Master is the third level of specific Women titles, which have lower thresholds than the general Chess Master titles (which are also open to women). There are as of March 2019 nearly 3,000 women chess players who have the same or a higher Women FIDE level. As far as I can see, she hasn't won any major senior titles (she did win the U14 European women's title). Fram (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big contradiction that chess tournaments like EYCC and WYCC are notable but their winners are not notable. Important chess tournaments without important chess players.--Uldis s (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a contradiction, there is always a bottom line where something is important but aspects of it aren't. An organisation can be notable without the chairman being notable, and so on. For these tournamens, we have articles on the championship as a whole, but not for individual championships by year, which indicates that this is not a truly important title. It even has an U8 category, we should not be creating articles for 7 or 8 year old chess players (in fact, I'll go and nominate Ece Alkim Erece for deletion now). Fram (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage outside of routine tournament results, and youth championships are not sufficient for notability.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:44, 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 Transwikify to Wikisource.. Tone 14:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full translation of the Behistun Inscription[edit]

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

This is a really useful resource, but it ought to be on wikisource (which I don't think existed when the page was created), not on WP. Furius (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a straight translation of a primary source is not an appropriate encyclopedia article. Anyhow, it looks like a direct copy of the translation linked in the source table at the bottom, making it a COPYVIO of that translation. Agricolae (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not a copyvio because the translation was published in 1907. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and the translator, E. A. Wallis Budge, died in 1934, meaning it went out of copyright in 2004 (life of author + 70 years). One of the book authors, Reginald Campbell Thompson, did not die until 1941, so anything else in the book did not go out of copyright until 2011. SpinningSpark 12:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, not a COPYVIO, but still WP:NOT what Wikipedia is for. Agricolae (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Specifically, WP:NOTREPOSITORY: "Public domain or other source material such as . . . original historical documents, . . . Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." Agricolae (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The text itself is very useful and actually has many accompanying elements, especially many photographs with captions as well as explanatory titles, which do add encyclopedic value. I would also like to volunteer to add a few lines of explanations at the beginning of each paragraph. If anything else has to be done, I think we should just change the name of the article to make it more in line with Wikipedia usage, or merge with the Behistun inscription article. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to Wikisource, linking to oldwikisource:Behistun Inscription/Column I. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; this should not be buried on Wikisource; the pictures and captions add greatly to the article. RobDuch (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand why the images, which are all of the primary source, could not be included in the article if it were on Wikisource. Furius (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikify to Wikisource, and provide a sister project link to it in Behistun Inscription. SpinningSpark 13:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify -- The inscription is an important historical source, so that the article on it should certainly be kept, but the translation belongs in Wikisource, not WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 25 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. No prejudice to re-nominating this after 2 or 3 months. This debate has been marred by irrelevant discussions about possible political ramifications. Randykitty (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Child Auxilium School[edit]

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

The school doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. No third party source found. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, due to the ongoing Smriti Irani issue. Submitter should clarify whether the current controversy has anything to do with the nomination (such as, the news articles made the editor aware of the school). Maybe submit the article for deletion again after the current controversy over her education has passed; otherwise people will say we are biased on our politics, or that the deleting was done to help or hurt someone politically. As for sources, there is one well detailed, third party source(here) in the article. Conceivably there could be more.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover, actually no. I followed the article from User:Bhanwar singh vaish. And that article seems to be an interview. Also the school seem to be famous for one event only. Does BLP1E applies? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back quickly on my question. Possibly User:Bhanwar singh vaish became aware of it due to current events.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, he last edited the article in March 2019 and has been banned the same month. I actually followed through from my CSD log and stumbled on the article. So it was pretty much random. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was pretty much random. I checked the edit history and must agree. The reference relating to the political scandal was added 19:37, 6 April 2019 by User:ToMt--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an officially recognized secondary school, we should keep this as we do most any secondary school with reliable proof of existence. John from Idegon (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, Well the article doesn't have third party coverage beyond WP:ITEXISTS --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the article helps the politician, removing it hurts the politician. Because the politician was caught falsely inflating her education earlier, she has highlighted her status as an alum of this school (not the same one as in the scandal) in an apparent attempt to showcase her top-notch background and maybe distract from the scandal. Keeping the article raises the status of the school, complementing her recent effort at damage control, deleting it does the opposite.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Epiphyllumlover, how so? The article has no third party source so seriously fail WP:GNG--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 19:37, 6 April 2019 by User:ToMt edit on the article added a single third party reference to the school. Granted, it was about Smriti Irani. So I looked on Google News: In 2015, the school was attacked 6 times in possible sectarian violence, leading to enhanced security measures, and also a special, Bollywood-inspired team, although later on the motivation was said to be theft. They caught a perp.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover, hmm tricky. But I think those sources should make the article cross WP:GNG. Although it more points towards event happening at the school rather than the school itself. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the current political issues have no bearing whatsoever on whether this article gets kept or deleted. The only question before us here in this discussion is whether or not the subject, this school, meets community standards for an article. Everything else is a content issue and belongs on the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The above being said, the question is whether the subject meets community standards for an article. I say it does. We've had numerous RfCs over the years trying to delineate a written standard and indeed we do periodically change the written standard. However, it has always been and I'd suggest it will always be the community consensus as illustrated by what happens here at AfD that we keep all legitimate diploma granting secondary schools. Wikipedia operates on consensus not rules. John from Idegon (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
John from Idegon, even if the sources about the school are lacking? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Tyw7. The standard for a diploma granting school is now and always has been much closer to GEOFEAT than GNG. You are clearly not disputing the school's existence. That's more than adequately shown, much better than many school articles. And please remember it isn't the article we are judging, it's the subject. Numerous other sources have been proffered here. The bit about the attack should certainly be added to the article. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  John from Idegon, Fajr enough. Can someone add the sources in the article --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOOL or WP:NGO, which states, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." - the absence of such coverage = delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We normally allow articles for Secondary Schools (which this is). This was to some extent a pragmatic policy as pupils are likely to want to create articles about their own schools. As an English medium school, this is likely to have a higher profile than Hindi-medium schools as its alumni are more likely to get good jobs, as a result of that education. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, but there is no reliable coverage of the school. It must at least pass WP:GNG --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as (I know it would be really hard to prove it), but this school is one of the better known ones in the West Delhi area. Delhi has numerous schools (given its population of 22 million), but only a few schools are well known enough (or perceived by parents to provide a good standard of education). For the record, I knew the name of his school as far back in the 90s, much before Wikipedia. When I decide whether to vote keep or delete, I believe that it is important to also consider the age of the school, newspaper reports, as well as whether the school has any famous alumni. The school is close to 50 years old and it has 2 generations of alumni, which can be verified from this report in DailyMail. This is also the sister school of Don Bosco School (Alaknanda, New Delhi), another well known school (verified from [11]). I understand the lack of coverage, but back in the 90s or 2000s, I distinctly remember that the activities hosted by the school (inter-school sports events, extracurricular activities) would appear in the pages of Hindustan Times/Times of India. Unfortunately I don't have access to the archives anymore so I cannot find it. The vandalism incident as well as the Smriti Irani controversy both add to the fact that people could reasonably search Wikipedia for more information about this school, so I guess we can keep this article.--DreamLinker (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any sources on this topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jo-Jo Eumerus, None about the school itself. https://www.google.com/search?q=Holy+Child+Auxilium+School&rlz=1CAHFRG_enGB847&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwy7_ZwbDiAhUjtnEKHdGDCEgQ_AUIECgD&biw=960&bih=913

Comment the comment dated 20:24, 8 May 2019 evaluated the sources I mentioned in the 19:05, 8 May 2019 comment as being enough to cross cross WP:GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:09, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krewe of Armeinius[edit]

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

Prod tag removed without comment. Subject fails notability guidelines at WP:GROUP, also fails WP:GNG Ifnord (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an important secondary source to the article in support of the Krewe of Armeinius page. I hope this will help. Nilbogg (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and added some more references, and I think that the subject does meet WP:GNG. The book Unveiling the Muse certainly does have significant coverage of this krewe, as does the New Orleans Advocate article, and other articles include relevant information. I think that the article could use some editing - it doesn't really have a lede paragraph, and I'm not sure that so much background info is necessary when there is a WP article about krewes (but I have more experience with biographies than other kinds of article, so I may be wrong).

If the article is not kept, then it should not be deleted - even if this krewe is not considered notable on its own, the gay krewes in New Orleans certainly are, so a combined article on all of them would be preferable to deletion - but I believe that they are notable, this one certainly, so it should be kept. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added during this discussion, (and Note that we do, unsurprisingly, have a large number of articles on these peculiar New Orleans institutions.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a Proquest news archive searches, copous WP:SIGCOV going back decades, including enough reviews to give that film a page, and some of the reviews have SIGCOV of this krewe. Frankly, this was a WP:BEFORE fail, although it may not be entirely the fault of Nom, who may not have access to news archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:27, 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. As noted by others, we need more than "perhaps" in order to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dentech Practice Management Software[edit]

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

Current article content is sourced to a wiki and a press release. I've been unable to find significant coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More sources have been added to the page. Let me know what other improvements you think should be made. Spearmint210 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I found coverage of other businesses named "Dentech", but none that corresponds to this company or its software. — Newslinger talk 08:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete There are other companies around the world called Dentech or a version of the name, that should not disregard the fact that the company is a legit dental software company operating in the United State since the late 1970's. Perhaps searching Dentech dental practice management software or just dental practice management software would give better results. Spearmint210 (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps? Whoever closes this discussion should give no weight at all to somebody speculating that "perhaps" sources might be found. (You may find it helpful to read WP:MUSTBESOURCES.) If you think that searches of that kind may perhaps produce suitable sources, then why don't you perform that search and tell us if you find any suitable sources? (I have followed your suggestion, and my account of the results I found is below.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even being the first of something doesn't matter if reliable independent secondary sources do not take notice of that contribution. As this entry lacks that coverage it is not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 14:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete Have corrected language to not say "first". — Betsie300 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this discussion. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:50, 24 May 2019‎ (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

@Betsie300: Can you clarify that statement? The account Betsie300 has not edited the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked the references in the article. The first one I looked at cited its content to PRNewswire-PRWeb. The second said "At Dentech, the first priority is to build a world-class company that is dedicated to customer satisfaction, produces a fair profit and cares about its employees." ...and so it went on. There is a wiki, a YouTube video, advertising sites, and so on. I also searched for sources, including trying the search terms that Spearmint210 (the creator of the article) suggested above, but for some reason didn't do himself/herself. I found the company's own web site, LinkedIn, this Wikipedia article, advertising sites, and similar, but nothing of any value. (Typical of most of the pages I found were one on a site which says "We stay in business because software vendors pay us when they receive web traffic directly from our site" and one which says "Get your products listed on Dentalcompare today!") This article is an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a business which does not come anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:12, 25 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) 14:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mjunction[edit]

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

The article appears self-generated--right now an editor is updating their annual financials. The sources are weak, and the article comes across as a business card. Orville1974 (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Heavily promotional WP:TNT worthy material. If anyone wants to try and salvage it, there's always refund to userspace or email, but there are only about 2 sentences and the infobox that wouldn't need to be rewritten. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:56, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Skjoldvær[edit]

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

Akin to the leader of a youth wing of a political party, this person has led a youth environmental organization. Only for a year and without considerable impact in Norwegian public life - yet. Of the 5 current references 4 are primary sources and 1 is trivial coverage (my news desk). While I don't doubt that there are several other news pieces mentioning her, she is not notable enough yet Geschichte (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: If the main issue with this source is the lack of secondary sources, then I can try and fix this. Would you be willing to give me a few days to rewrite the article to include information from secondary sources that improve notability? After that, you could reassess for notability - if it is still not notable, then I would understand the article's deletion.

The main reason that the article is largely dependent on primary sources is due to it being largely a translation of the Norwegian article, which uses roughly the same sources. However, I'm sure more rewrites would make this article notable. Sound okay? - OliverEastwood (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi OliverEastwood, as this is a translation from the Norwegian WP, see here, it needs the appropriate attribution (see WP:TFOLWP). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and afds usually run for 7 (or more) days before being closed so you have some time to find sources, oh, and welcome to wikipedia and the (murky?:)) world of afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've added secondary sources and information to improve notability, and have slightly expanded the article. Could someone please re-review for notability? I reckon the article is now notable enough to avoid deletion. Thanks very much - OliverEastwood (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a discussion of the sources that were added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging OliverEastwood, who is newish and may not realize his attention is still needed here. Oliver, Jo-Jo Eumerus is asking for a discussion of the sources you've added. You also should formally !vote, which involves posting a comment that starts with '''Keep''' (three apostrophes, Keep, three apostrophes will produce a bolded !vote of Keep), as those are the opinions the person closing the discussion will be most closely assessing. --valereee (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Skjoldvær has had a leadership role in several prominent Norwegian environmentalist organisations, one of which (Folkeaksjonen) has taken notable action, including a lawsuit against the Norwegian government, as well as its actions leading to the creating of an area which is permanently protected against oil drilling. References have also been updated to reflect this notability - several reputable news sources have been added. In light of this, I believe that the lack of notability (which this AfD was created to address) has been sorted, and the article is of a high enough quality to keep. - OliverEastwood talk 10:55, 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. Per the uncontested claims of notability added later to the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Greenwood[edit]

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

Not really notable, although I may be wrong. The only sources link back to profile pages and a link from her husband's site (Paul Coia). It's when his page was nominated for deletion I noticed her article and not sure this meets WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she meets WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. I have found and added sources and more information - there is significant coverage in the Liverpool Echo and a book called Morning Glory: A History of British Breakfast Television, and other less substantial but not trivial coverage in reviews in The Times, a book about Children's views about television, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO was Miss Great Britain The article is well sourced with non-trivial coverage of the subject Lubbad85 (☎) 13:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Miss Great Britain at a time when it received plenty of attention and a well known television presenter in the mid-80s. Clearly notable, although most of the coverage may be in the black hole years that were pre-WWW, but later than is covered by some news archives. There's quite a lot in the British Newspaper Archive, which shows that she also presented a regular show on BBC Radio 2 into the 1990s and TV programmes such as the Saturday teatime quiz First Class on BBC1. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The BNA has done quite a good job recently filling the gaps for those "black hole years" as you put it - much more from the era when she first came to fame than when I first subscribed, which was only 14 months ago. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:32, 27 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 Continuous partial attention. Consensus is clearly the article needs to go, but the delete camp has not explicitly denied that any content could be reused; thus redirecting to allow for stuff to be taken from the page history in case any of it can be salvaged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Interruption[edit]

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

This fails WP:GNG - it is a term used in an opinion article, and one academic paper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Continuous partial attention. Schazjmd (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term ." is the standard that needs to be met.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Has not been adopted in popular culture ...and the use of this term is minimal to non-existent. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:09, 27 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. It seems like while independent sources do exist, consensus appears to be that they are all namechecks/passing comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Burrell[edit]

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

Article seems to be possible self-promotion, with information that only hardcore fans would know. Most sources point towards programme pages, with the exception of a few. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed the content that could have been argued led towards self-promotion and added references from independent sources. There is now no reason for this article to be deleted. 18:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable I think. Although on a network station, not enough reliable sources. Most only have a passing comment. 82.132.212.230 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio personalities, even on major radio networks, are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because their own self-published content, on their own website and the website of their employer, technically verifies that they exist — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about him in sources that don't sign his paycheque. But the only such sources on offer here are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people, not coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 24 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Crick[edit]

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

Non-notable radio presenter. Hardly any RS. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:GNG. Jamie has been a presenter on national radio for more than 20 years and currently presents on a national radio station, and the article contains independent sources and I have added further independent references. Rillington (talk) 04:06, 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 06:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes WP:GNG The subject is well sourced with non-trivial significant coverage. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, meets SIGCOV somewhat imo. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery Boys[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM and I know online sources will be scarce for a film from the 80's combined with such a common title but I can't find anything in print sources either. Praxidicae (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable film - Rotten Tomatoes lists no critical or audience reviews - does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM due to WP:NFO citeria 2, point 1 due to non-trivial (I'd say significant) treatment in two articles published more than 5 years after the film's release: Hip Hop on Film: Performance Culture, Urban Space, and Genre Transformation in the 1980s by Kimberly Monteyne (pub 2013) and Hip Hop in American Cinema by Melvin Donalson (pub 2007) as can be found in Google Books (the mention in the latter book is not part of the Google books preview, but the surrounding text from the search hit shows it's similar to the treatment in the first book I mentioned). - GretLomborg (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source: The film was also reviewed in the major publication Variety (as shown by its review being reprinted in Variety Film Reviews Volume 19: [12]), and likely other pre-digital publications. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do those sources say about this film? Praxidicae (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first [13] describes the movie as "perhaps the most unique hip hop musical reviewed in this book," includes a photo of the poster, four paragraphs of plot summary and discussion, and refers to the movie in about a half dozen other places throughout the book. The second [14] appears to discuss it on page 20, which is not part of the Google books preview. I also found a newspaper cite for the weird anecdote about the mayoral candidate. Given that all of these are from decades after the movie was released, it's highly likely that there is more non-digitized press coverage contemporaneous with its release. WP:NEXIST applies here. - GretLomborg (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there are print sources, I searched in depth in two newspaper archives where I have fully paid access and I got nothing substantial that could save this article. Praxidicae (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I ran the title through a news archive search with varying keywords ("Ken Handler", "Smantha Fox", "break dancing") and found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had better luck with the terms "delivery boys" "marcano" (the lead actor). - GretLomborg (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

withdrawing. The book is SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tied "marcano". still nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in Google News (but it's incomplete and has a strong recentism bias), and I have the understanding that Google's newspaper archive has serious searching issues. However, there's stuff in Google Books. Do you have access to anything more thorough, like ProQuest or LexisNexis? It was reviewed at least one major newspaper, Variety, so I think the lack of results may be more of a function of database incompleteness than true lack of coverage. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was using Proquest newspapers. I should have specified. Newspapers.com often finds stuff Proquest misses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The refererences that GretLomborg has brought to this discussion are adequate to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM due to WP:NFO and per remarks of GretLomborg Lubbad85 (☎) 03:30, 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. Mainly per the sources offered later during the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mony Helal[edit]

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

Not a notable person to have an article, doesn’t meet the wikipedia criteria and most of the info are fake/hoax, and even the references are hoax, the brands written and the show never had her on, and the miss egypt universe (the official competition) (the official one that was held in Thailand and was on Fox TV) has an other person who was on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianTyphoon (talk • contribs) 05:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Egypt, as a functional WP:ATD-R. Source coverage about the subject is only existent per the one event of being crowned Miss Egypt 2018. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ keep: I created this article. based on sources, she is miss Egypt 2018, therefor she participated at Miss World 2018 as representative of Egypt. this article is about a Miss Egypt like others. but someone is trying hard to delete the article. at first they added Speedy deletion tag several times and one of wikipedias admin reverted their edit, and warned them. after that they added AFD. I don't know why a team are trying to delete the article. you can check the sources that shows that she participated in Miss World 2018 as representative of Egypt so it means she is Miss Egypt 2018. too many sources in Arabic is talking about her. please participate in discussion to confront against vandalism edit.Camayokasa (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She isn’t a notable person to have an article, the arabic articles you’re talking about are hoax, I can understand arabic and everything written is hoax, the brands written in the wikipedia aren’t true, the show even isn’t true that she was on it, everything is fake, fake fame just for a wikipedia article? and the miss egypt universe title (the only official competition that was on Fox TV (One of the best known channels in the US) and steve harvey hosted it. another egyptian girl was miss egypt universe, stop this hoax please this wikipedia should be deleted as soon as possible, and she was trying to put her name on the miss universe list and you can check the page’s log, everything is fake and hoax, thank you for understanding. your sources isn’t right there is no legit or “True” source, just a few arabic articles and they’re all fake. thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EgyptianTyphoon (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Please be civil in your discourse. Also, you are making claims that appear contrary to the sourcing offered. Please provide reliable sources for your claim that these are a hoax. We cannot simply take your word that these are a hoax. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that all these seemingly reliable sources are part of a hoax. Waggie (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment First, thank you for calling me uncivil, second, If u understand arabic you’ll notice that all the sources aren’t reliable, and the info in the article isn’t correct, you can look it up, third and for a million times, she isn’t a notable person to have a wikipedia article for her, thank you. and in response to the first comment, if a team or a different group of people are trying to delete the article this means this article isn’t worth to be on wikipedia, thank you.

can you tell me which one of the sources is unreliable or hoax?! you wrote she is not notable, she is miss Egypt 2018 and went on to compete representing Egypt in Miss world 2018 which is a worldwide competition, my question is we should nominate wikipedia page of all of Miss Egypt's for deletion? please vote in discussion fairly. you added 2 times speedy deletion and an admin reverted your edits because was considering as vandalism edits and then put AFD tag although I received review tag, and article has been reviewed.Camayokasa (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found these sources [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. These are reliable sources and she has been covered in reliable online Women and egyptian magazines. as WP:ANYBIO subject was awarded WP:GNG title of Miss egypt (well-known and significant award or honor) and I found her name in the list of Contestants of Miss World 2018 as the delegate of egypt. So subject meets WP:GNG.Rashidelbenan (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added 1 more reliable source, other references in article are reliable, too. The subject by title of Miss 2018 Egypt and participated on Miss 2018 World can prove notability of subject.Fatzaof (talk) 14:18, 27 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) 04:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S. Gomez[edit]

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

Neither of these individuals is commonly known as "S. Gomez". We do not routinely create disambiguation pages of the form first initial, last name unless there are actually multiple people who are known by that moniker. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In agreement that an initial and a last name are definitely not the norm for disambig pages. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, as 2nd choice, redirect to Gómez, the surname page. Not standard to create such pages, so anyone creating an article on a Sue Gomez would not think to add it to this dab page, creating confusion. See also discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_19#Tswift where several "initial plus surname" redirects are under discussion and this dab page gets a mention. PamD 08:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neither of these people are known as "S. Gomez". -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or a weak redirect to Gómez. This isn't an appropriate form of disambiguation if none of the people listed are known as "S. Gomez". PC78 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, precisely per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:55, 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. T. Canens (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Anthrop[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GRIDIRON John from Idegon (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my survey of sources did not turn up anything to pass WP:GNG or any other notability measure. The articles I do find tend to point towards "non-notability" rather than "notability" … Someone else have may more luck...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete @Paulmcdonald: Unfortunately I had no luck myself. I did a search online and couldn’t find any really good sources that would indicate notability, this person doesn’t pass WP:GNG or WP:GRIDIRON. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not pass WP:NCOLLATH doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON either Lubbad85 (☎) 00:40, 28 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) 02:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arkadin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT requirements of in-depth analysis in multiple media. A smattering of routine business transactions and exec transitions does not satisfy. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is it's 3rd time it's come up (now, March 2019, and June 2006). Orville1974 (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . A whole lot of press releases and passing mentions but nothing Indepth and WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:56, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marukome USA, Inc.[edit]

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

The article appears to be self promotion, with only one newspaper mention of a factory opening, and two links to its corporate sites. Orville1974 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:19, 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 redirect to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Irish inmates. T. Canens (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Kirk[edit]

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

No just no. We have list of character articles and fandom for stuff like this. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been cited regarding this television character, unless you count general references to seasons of the TV show he is from, and certainly not any secondary sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a categorized {{R from fictional character}} and {{R to section}} to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Irish inmates. The article is poorly sourced, and consists mostly of unsourced plot summary. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline, and this charater seems not notable for a stand-alone article. But since he is a character in Oz (TV series), a categorized {{R from fictional character}} to the list of characters in the series is an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion. Sam Sailor 09:00, 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 redirect to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Bob Rebadow. T. Canens (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Rebadow[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from fictional character}} and {{R to anchor}} to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Bob Rebadow. The article is poorly sourced, and consists mostly of unsourced plot summary. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline, and this charater does not seem notable for a stand-alone article. But since he is a main character in Oz (TV series), a categorized {{R from fictional character}} to the list of characters in the series is an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion. No prejudice against a stand-alone article, if it can be properly sourced. Sam Sailor 08:32, 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 redirect to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Kareem Saïd. T. Canens (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Saïd[edit]

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

Per WP:LOGIC. There is no reason to give every freaking characters on every show an article. Makes no freaking sense. This site is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, we have Fandom sites for stuff like this and list of characters. Most Wikipedians have never even heard of Oz. UGH THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a categorized {{R from fictional character}} and {{R to anchor}} to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Kareem Saïd. The article is poorly sourced, and consists mostly of unsourced plot summary. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline, and this charater does not seem notable for a stand-alone article. But since he is a main character in Oz (TV series), a categorized {{R from fictional character}} to the list of characters in the series is an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion. No prejudice against a stand-alone article, if it can be properly sourced. Sam Sailor 08:44, 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 redirect to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Miguel Alvarez. T. Canens (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Alvarez (Oz)[edit]

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

Per WP:LOGIC THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you realize that WP:LOGIC refers to "the Logic Task Force, a joint task force of WikiProject Philosophy and WikiProject Mathematics"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkZusab (talk • contribs)
Delete but only due to lack of sources being cited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a categorized {{R from fictional character}} and {{R to anchor}} to List of Oz (TV series) characters#Miguel Alvarez. The article is poorly sourced, and consists mostly of unsourced plot summary. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline, and this charater does not seem notable for a stand-alone article. But since he is a main character in Oz (TV series), a categorized {{R from fictional character}} to the list of characters in the series is an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion. No prejudice against a stand-alone article, if it can be properly sourced. Sam Sailor 08:53, 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 but consider repurposing. But consider repurposing the article to be about the death(s). People have made valid claims about the notability of the latter event(s), while the discussion of the individual leans more into the "not notable" direction Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Saremi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Only coverage from trivial mention in Amnesty International document and primary source interview with subject's son. Speedy denied because article claims Saremi was longest serving political prisoner in Iran, which provided sources do not support. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein: Would you consider changing your vote to keep so I may withdraw? The page has been updated with sources that did not appear when I did WP:BEFORE, and I now believe it possesses adequate notability. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. He's certainly non-notable. The event of his death may be, though. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was an Iranian prominent prisoner and article is notable for human rights case in Iran that was widely covered in the press. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above user is creator of the page up for deletion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to "Death of Ali Saremi" or "Murder of Ali Saremi" - the event may meet GNG, but not the individual Orville1974 (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Orville1974: How would his execution be any more notable, given the sources provided? Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24: - the death seems more notable than the life; that's what brought out the human rights repsonse. And as a series, the prisoner deaths become more notable. Ideally, there would be one article about the series of Iranian prisoner deaths, and the associated human rights response, with a list of victims, but until someone writes that article, I think renaming the existing articles to focus on each individual's murder is a step closer to consolidating the series Orville1974 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the above, that this passes the test of notability and is a significant beginning. If someone is able to do more let them take off from here. Do be careful, though, this may be risky business. Jzsj (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename I would be fine with "Death of Ali Saremi" or something along those lines. Ypatch (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orville1974. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Spending more than 20 years as a political prisoner makes Ali Saremi Notable. --MA Javadi (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orville1974.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per WP:HEY, WP:BIO1E and Orville1974. The sources added since it was listed meet the GNG, though the article and coverage are mostly centered around 1 event. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 27 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. Mz7 (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Santos[edit]

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

Fails GNG. I'm seeing what appear to be some fan sites and some site called "We love soaps", which I do not believe can be considered reliable sources. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 00:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 00:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 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.