Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 May	10 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Kohut[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Not enough games in Slovak Extraliga to pass criteria #2 and none of the other leagues he played in count towards notability regardless of how many games they play. Tay87 (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor") - Epinoia (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY or WP:SIGCOV. SSSB (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Ball (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alampady Cricket Stadium, Alampady, Kasaragod[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion.

Note: This article was nominated for deletion once before in 2017, and ultimately deleted as a WP:CSD copyright violation. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search finds This which would seem to show that this is at best a club ground. No indication in the article (or elsewhere) why this is a notable cricket ground that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Spike 'em (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a club ground at present that hasn't hosted any major domestic matches. Amusingly, if you go onto Google maps and click on the photo of the ground you'll get a guy with invisible legs! StickyWicket (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too far from meeting notability policies. 103.67.158.233 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text about an "upcoming" construction project. (Perhaps the competent department is simply doing its job. But Wikipedia is not the place for it.) It's clearly too soon to have it here. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is "upcoming". According to this it was to be started sometime around 2015 and ready 2 years after that. From searching for the stadium on google maps it seems to be in use already (there are some videos of cricketing activities there), so is not an upcoming venue (though some of the infrastructure may be upgraded). It seems to be a non-notable local facility and until it is shown to be used for some high-level cricket, I think it will remain that way. I feel like reverting some of the recent changes, but see little need to unless it survives this AfD. Spike 'em (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 ASC Diaraf season[edit]

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

This mainly doesn't follow WP:GNG guidelines with the league not being professional and all that stuff. Matt294069 (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG as required by WP:NSEASONS and WP:NTEAM - there is no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NSEASONS. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Aside from the hoax concerns, it seems like even the non-hoax topic doesn't meet notability guidelines Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Jahić[edit]

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

Interwiki hoax. City Records doesn't list him as one of their artists. He didn't star in San Andreas, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Kong: Skull Island, Halloween or any film listed in filmography. IMDb accredits him with only a minor role in a Serbian TV series. Those awards are pure jokes. Alexandru M. (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as hoax material was removed.Delete as hoax. Most other wiki articles don't even mention him as an actor. Also, the German Wiki article is up for deletion as well.--Auric talk 16:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original article, which I have restored, was about a Bosnian analyst, not an actor. The article was hijacked by DavidBEKT, who I will be blocking shortly, to add the hoax material about an actor.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even after the revert operated by Ponyo, the notability of this journalist is not supported by sources. A summary biography can be found on Al Jazeera, but that doesn't mean he's more remarkable than other journalists affiliated with Al Jazeera that don't have an article on Wikipedia. Other summary biography is provided by Kosovo 2.0, without exemplifying his "various civic initiatives in Bosnia and Herzegovina, mostly related to human rights, political freedoms and war crimes." Alexandru M. (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please also have a look at Draft:Nedim Jahić Jonas. Don't know te policy for drafts, but it's the same.--Fano (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Page does not exist"... 😒 Alexandru M. (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted, but an IP recently added a version of it to the article.--Auric talk 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment I just declined a speedy deletion request, because I think thyat, giving thios is already open, the discussion should carry on, based on the notability issue. Or maybe a wp:IAR speedy relist...? - Nabla (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two sentences does not an encyclopedic article make WP:2S - while his work may be noble, he lacks notability under WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor") - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:BASIC. The human rights activist nor the actor are notable. Mysticair667537 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Entirely unsuited for any encyclopaedia. Subject fails all criteria for notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite it's existence everywhere xwiki, this was a massive spam/hoax campaign (essentially) by the subject that unfortunately got picked up repeatedly by good faith users and bots translating. Praxidicae (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that this was hijacked, then subsequently created xwiki on languages that did not have existing articles about the actual subject. Pretty clever. I have no opinion on whether the original subject (an activist) is notable or not but I'm striking my delete !vote as it was about the hijacked subject. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Rayburn[edit]

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

County Sheriff who fails WP:NPOL. The sources used-4 dead links to what appear to have been election results, an unlinked press statement, his Social Security death record, and a family written obituary-do not come close to establishing WP:GNG GPL93 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The office that runs elections in Louisiana has a new web site at https://www.sos.la.gov/ElectionsAndVoting/Pages/default.aspx I couldn't find historical election results there, but you might have better luck. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete historical election results from the state office over such things are pimary sources, they in no way show encyclopedic notability. Not everyone elected sheffid of all 5000+ counties in the US (or at least those that have an elected sheirrif) is notable. It should be noted that in the US the sheirrif is head of police at the county level, he has no authority over other government functions. Most are directly elected while most heads of city police are appointed. There are exceptions. Another complicating factor is that in some areas the sherrif has primarily jurisdiction over the non-city parts of the county, in other areas he holds more strong jurisdiction. Another key factor is that the sherrif does not have the adility to prosecute or empanel grand juries, these are the decisions of the county prosecutor/district attorney, depending on the terminology in the state. In most places the county prosecutor/district attorney prosecutes all criminal cases in the entire county. Most government prosecutors are elected, and they normally have much more power than the sherrif.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete intense coverage, mostly regional, some national, when he was charged along with his Dad and 2 brothers, on federal charges involving a commercial gambling scheme. All four were acquitted. Coverage of political campaigns, term as sheriff look WP:MILL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text that's suitable only after Wikipedia changes over to include everything in the universe. Until then, such articles have no place here. Subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. -The Gnome (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Anders[edit]

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

There appear to have been concerns about the subject's notability since 2008. Small town Mayor (Stamford, TX; pop=3,124) who fails WP:NPOL and doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Possibly a vanity project more than anything, this text was created and curated by a politician specialist, who eventually got hit with a permanent ban for massive copyright violations. -The Gnome (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melia Kreiling[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Found almost no significant third-party coverage of actor beyond passing mentions. Tagged with {{BLP sources}} since July 2018. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the main problem is that it just hasn't been updated frequently. Find a couple of sources and I think it is worth keeping.Voicebox64 (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appearance doesn’t equal notability and nothing independent out there confirms the statements of the article. Trillfendi (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as does have multiple prominent roles in notable tv and film productions but needs sources Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has appeared in sufficient films, televised productions,and so forth to be deemed notable an actor. WaterwaysGuy (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it barely pass WP:NACTOR, as she has been in numerous films and been part of television shows for quite a while now. A quick Google search in the "news" section shows lots of news about her and the show she's in. INeedSupport ^:3 20:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NACTOR, as she "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Sources to verify her appearance and roles in such films and shows can be found, and there is significant coverage in Feast and Paste magazines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:56, 15 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mangpor Chonthicha[edit]

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

possibly fails WP:BIO. Rob3512 _chat? ^{what I did} 17:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete All languages of this article have the same issue: they are stubs that rely on the same 3 inadequate sources. At this time it seems like there is not enough significant coverage to keep the article. Trillfendi (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable singer when her peak around 10 years ago. News coverage from Thai Rath (Thailand number one newspaper): [1] I can count 14 news there available online dated from 2010 to 2018. Clicking on each photo brings full-length news article. Google news search: [2] shows the variety of news coverage from respectable Thai newspapers. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above as per WP:NEXIST the subject easily passes WP:BASIC and deserves to be included in the encyclopedia (which is also available in print and apps so it's not just a website), thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looking at the references they all appear to be online tabloid/gossip sources that do not provide significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor" as per WP:ANYBIO - does not meet WP:SINGER (has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable", has not "had a single or album on any country's national music chart", has not "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country", has not "received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour", etc.) - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong Thai Rath is a national broadsheet newspaper not a tabloid at all Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lerdsuwa. The amount of recent coverage of her personal life alone is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:56, 14 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Griffith[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL as a losing gubernatorial candidate who only earned the GOP nomination because apparently nobody else ran in the primary. Lost every county and appears to have received little coverage even when running for governor, which is noted in the article. GPL93 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" - sources cited do not amount to "significant coverage" as required by WP:GNG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:50, 14 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Access Group[edit]

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

Notability unclear, looks very promotional, all but two sources are the company webpage (and the two sources are just a report of an acquisition and membership in a group) creffett (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete I agree, as much as I hate to see someone's work be destroyed, there is no basis for the amount of information provided in this article. A list of services from a company like this is egregious and I don't see a real reason to keep this article. Should there be sources this might be a WP:TNT. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article featuring a brochure-like summary of the company's wares and its acquisition history. The product history shows features being added at the expected times - nothing in the article or found elsewhere indicates these to have been significant innovations. Press releases are insufficient for WP:NCORP; I added a brief bylined City AM item but that too falls under the Examples of trivial coverage. Overall, a midsize company going about its business but without independent indication of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 18:27, 11 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Click Aviation Network[edit]

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

The kinds of sources used presently in the article - reflecting what appear to be press releases (churnalism) or trade show announcements is typical of the kind of coverage I found. Company therefore lacks any kind of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:N. The most persuasive external source used in the article is the 2 references from Aviation International News, which gives the impression of being independent journalism, until you look at their advertisers media kit [3] (page 4, "native advertising") and see that one of the advertising options they offer is a full length story. Just submit a word document with the copy, a high resolution photo, and $6,500 (call for details regarding custom content creation) and you can have an article, too!. The rest of the coverage is trivial or directory listings. The corporatejetinvestor.com reference is a word-for-word match with a press release appearing at aviationpros.com which is sourced to Click Aviation Network. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Nikandrov[edit]

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

Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. The article claims that he is the architect of certain buildings, but this is not what our articles on the individual buildings show. Unless this claim in itself is somehow notable. See Scottish firm accuses Russian rival of ‘fake news’ in skyscraper spat Edwardx (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, on the basis he seems to be a prominent architect/engineer, who has had some significant coverage about him (including the article found by Edwardx about the questionable claims of authorship). Much of the coverage is in Russian, but the Vedomosti article is substantially about him. Of course the article needs clean-up and maybe even moving it to draft space to improve would be feasible (if there is someone to take on the task). Sionk (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient reliable sources to verify the content at present, particularly given the allegation (unproven) that he takes credit for other people's work. That and the SPA should all ring alarm bells. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV in searches for sourcing using Latin alphabet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 15 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara (musician)[edit]

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

Improperly referenced WP:BLP of a musician whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are unverifiable. The Billboard charting claims are tied to the indicator charts (i.e. songs that are getting tracked for factors like sales or streams, but have not necessarily cracked the actual Hot 100) rather than the notability-making singles charts, so they don't pass NMUSIC #2 -- and they're "referenced" to dead files formerly stored either in the artist's own self-published website or a Dropbox account, not to Billboard itself (and an actual search of Billboard's website also failed to confirm any of them, either.) And other than that, the only other notability claim he has is song placements in TV shows referenced only to IMDb, which is also not a free exemption from actually having to have real reliable source coverage. As always, musicians can and do make self-aggrandizing but inaccurate claims about themselves to get into Wikipedia for the publicity boost -- so it's not what the article says that passes NMUSIC, it's how well the article is referenced to reliable sources which properly verify that the things it says are true. This is also very likely conflict of interest editing by his own PR agents, as the creator was an SPA named "MusicKnowledgeGroup". Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but the lack of references doom this article - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO (has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself") - Epinoia (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A promotional article by an SPA editor. It was promptly nominated for Speedy Deletion 5 years ago but declined based on the claim to have had a charted single, although the only verification was to the subjects own website. However, it was not for a monitored Billboard charts, but rather to an indicator, which is helpful information to programers/professionals, but means nothing in regards to being on an actual chart. The song doesn't turn up in a search of the Billboard database. Otherwise, fails as noted for lack of any sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trianz[edit]

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

Non-notable company; apart from two routine news coverage of acquisition transactions, there is no coverage in independent third-party reliable sources; the remaining sources are all from the company itself. TJRC (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE - no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - references are mainly about acquisitions, not about the company itself - no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" - therefore, Delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, just as the CEO Sri Manchala, who's article is being considered for deletion... Spyder212 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Clark (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails WP:NBASEBALL. Now out of MiLB after signing w/ independent league team Pozzi.c (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:56, 12 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Caro[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG notability guidelines. My WP:BEFORE was unsuccessful in turning up appropriate references. As an aside, the lack of references and the familiar tone cause me to be suspicious of WP:COI editing (though I fully admit that this could be remedied if the decision is made to keep this article). Overall, I think it is WP:TOOSOON for an article about this subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tataral (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I can't find any sources to indicate notability either. -- Netoholic @ 01:26, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find anything to show that WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:NARTIST is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:06, 14 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe A. Guerra[edit]

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

Councilman of a non-major US city. Fails WP:NPOL and the sources used-most of which are either obituaries, independent research, or basic government records that literally every US resident has-do not come close to establishing WP:GNG GPL93 (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" - does not meet WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor") - Epinoia (talk) 02:11, 14 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. Sandstein 12:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rose (journalist)[edit]

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

Bio of a working journalist with no indication of notability per WP:JOURNALIST. He's held a few fairly senior roles at the Wall Street Journal but that itself doesn't make him notable. WP:BEFORE searches don't find anything to suggest he's more than a successful working journalist, which isn't really enough. He is (or possibly was) married to a notable person but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Neiltonks (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article has no purpose whatsoever. Very little on Google, fails WP:BASIC and appears to be a self-promoted article. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"self promoted"? nah, if a journalist on this level wrote his own page, it would be better than this stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person has had a number of by-lined articles on a major newspaper (WSJ). "In Saylorsburg, Penn., in 2016, I met the exiled Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen and wrote a leder with Doug Belkin about how charter schools became a proxy in the battle between the cleric and the president of Turkey. (Matthew Rose expertly coordinated and Steve Yoder edited.) It was part of a package (led by Meg Coker) that was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting last year." [4] credits him with a role in a Pulitzer finalist. [5] credits him with being the immediate supervisor of a person winning a "Feddie" award. [6] quoted in the Routledge Companion to Media and Scandal. [7] "the Journal’s Washington bureau deputy chief, Matthew Rose, will serve as editor, enterprise.". Deputy bureau chief for the WSJ is not "cub reporter" level, AFAICT. Not Walter Cronkite, but as notable as most of the reporters now having BLPs on Wikipedia. And none of the sources I give are WP:SPS. Collect (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per far from WP:GNG. The NYT cite in the article is not enough even if we consider it independent. The first three of Collect's links above are bare mentions, and the Politico one from the article is not independent (mostly). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um --- When an editor in only a couple of minutes finds several non-trivial and non-SPS sources, attacking that editor is seldom showing more than animus at best. That one is anxious to delete this reporter who is more notable than many ones currently having articles is insufficient for denigrating the fact than another editor found a number of mentions in a few short minutes and only used four as being logically sufficient for any AfD discussion. If you wish more, I can nicely overload this discussion :). [8] featured on Slate. [9] covered in trade publications. " Bragg’s comments to Kurtz had fellow reporters on the NYT national desk “in a state of meltdown” on Wednesday, a Times staffer tells Matthew Rose. (Wall Street Journal)" and so on. How many cites are needed? Collect (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In no way, shape or form did I intend to attack you, and I can only hope that most editors don't read it that way. You presented sources, I didn't want to ignore that. Per WP:GNG, the Slate article doesn't add any notability, and the Poynter one is another passing mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Slate and Poynter stories are exactly the kind that support the notability of journalists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see those sources doing very much for the notability of this article per WP:JOURNALIST. Support, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is Wall Street Journal Washington bureau deputy chief and the paper's front page chief co-editor for enterprise. (The other co-editor oversees news. See here.) The positions evidently render notability to subject journalist. -The Gnome (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not much. Fails WP:GNG. ~GMC ^{{talk to me}} 19:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't anyone doing back up search anymore? A cursory online glance reveals a plethora of sources: The article subject's involvement in what was called a "sweeping change" in a major U.S. newspaper such as WSJ has been prominent in trade and other media (e.g. here, here, and here); he has been involved in a well known controversy (see this, followed by this); he's frequently called on to comment on events (see here and here); his work is cited by the likes of Le Monde Diplomatique (see here); he was among the limited number of American "opinion leaders" invited at a "working dinner" by the president of Turkey (see here); and so on. -The Gnome (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my experience journalists and editors in his position at a paper like the WSJ have participated in enough media to achieve WP:GNG. While the creator of this article hasn't done the work to establish notability in the article through citations, I would bet the sources from TV, Newspapers and TV are out there. I would suggest having the interested parties do the required research to come up with appropriate sources to establish notablity. If they can't the page should be deleted but this is likely more of a case of lazy or uneducated editing. Disclosure: I have not done any research into the topic. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 09:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that users Collect and The Gnome have done exactly as you suggest, finding and linking to exellent sources that clearly demonstrate notability. Alhtough it is nice when an AfD spurs an editor to improve a page, it is not required. At AfD, our job is to establish that WP:SIGCOV exists. That has now been proven.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment E.M.Gregory Happy to help! Glad the page could be modified to become useful. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly significant journalist. Persuasive sources brought above by Collect and The Gnome. ~~Just leave the sourcing tag in place.~~ E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced the page. Point made above by User:The Gnome, User:Collect, and User:ScienceAdvisor, that the fact that he is one of the editors who runs one of the most influential newspapers in the United States, makes him notable - full stop - is the more important argument.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Speakers Bureau[edit]

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

defunct organisation. Not obviously notable. Lacking in references. Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE - no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" - therefore, Delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:02, 14 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. But willing to revise if anything backing Jinabi's claims of significance arises. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shakatambika[edit]

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

No references since 2010. Quick search did not find any reliable independent source. The temple is there but not notable to be included here. PROD contested and comments are on talkpage. Nizil (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be expanded, cleaned up and properly cited, but it's a temple related to a rather important family in Indian history. --Jinabi (talk) 8:36, April 29 2019 (UTC)

@Jinabi:, can you find me some reliable sources for citation. I could not find. The temple is there but notability must be established with sources to have an article.Which is that important family you are talking about?-Nizil (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely lacking in citations, could be all made up - WP:NBUILDING states, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." - Epinoia (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Huszárik[edit]

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

Non-notable low level hockey player who fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make - does not meet WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor") - does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:NHOCKEY - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kalináč[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Not enough games played in Slovak Extraliga to meet notability. Tay87 (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make - does not meet WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor") - does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:NHOCKEY - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:44, 14 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 keep as per speedy keep reason 1.(non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Dawson[edit]

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

BLP without working references. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my very modest WP:HEY. User:Rathfelder, I quite agree that page was "not obviously notable," Indeed, I presumed that it was just another PROMO for a self-promoting business guru. Nevertheless, I ran my usual news archive searches on the book titles - and, lo, notability appeared. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here: is a gBooks search [10]. Page can certainly be improved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved thank you. Happy to withdraw my nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 20:40, 9 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 SpartanNash. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's Super Markets[edit]

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

This article has been a stub for quite a while now. I don't see anything notable about the store, except for another business acquiring the business. However, even that may not be notable per WP:INHERITORG. Plus, half of the article is a WP:BLP violation as it shows a crime of a person (see WP:BLPCRIME). INeedSupport ^:3 14:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. INeedSupport ^:3 14:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SpartanNash; nothing very unique about this chain confined to Michiana (and I reduced the crime nonsense since there should be no need to give the shooter in that incident the time of day and immortalize them here). Nate • (chatter) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SpartanNash - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" per WP:ORGSIG - citations are about the take-over by SpartanNash and a crime (one-event notability), not specifically about Martin's Super Markets - therefore, redirect - Epinoia (talk) 01:24, 14 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.Sukumar[edit]

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

No evidence of independent notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor") - does not meet WP:FILMMAKER (not "regarded as an important figure") - having a job as a cinematographer or actor does not establish notability - Epinoia (talk) 01:16, 14 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. Not suitable for Wikipedia, but I'm happy to email copies to anyone who wants to put it somewhere else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Java EE version history[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software that is serving as a change log in violation of WP:NOT. Should be redirected to Java Platform, Enterprise Edition as an WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -- Begoon 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Java EE is not software. It's a specification, designed by a joint committee of independent industry leaders, and implemented by dozens of vendors (IBM, RedHat, Apache, and Oracle to name a few). Its evolution is keenly monitored by those in the industry, and as such, secondary and tertiary sources over its historical evolution and future direction are widely available. The quality of this article can be improved by these sources and I would welcome those changes, but anyone involved in this technology would disagree that the historical course of Java EE is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 9 May 2019, 14:53 (UTC)
The IP left further comments about why this should be kept at my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 16:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:IINFO. --MrClog (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a pretty exemplary use of WP as a README.txt dump. This kind of material is collated and provided by the developer; we shouldn't mirror this level of detail. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "piece of software", "developer"... it isnt what you guys think it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.234.5 (talk • contribs) 21:04, May 9, 2019 (UTC)
Then tell what it is and why it should be kept, please. --MrClog (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the onus is to show why it should be deleted, and 3 votes to delete (Barkeep49, Elmidae, Begoon) are basing their vote on the notion that it's software. it's not. it's an evolving specification. documents.

I admit my phrasing was imprecise. However the lack of notability and concerns aboutthe current content of the article running afoul of WP:NOT, remain regardless of what we call this. Notability is not inherited either so if it had the sustained importance that DJM asserts I'd expect more coverage such to demonstrate GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a new version comes out there's discussion of the new/changed features/capabilities such as in [11]. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keep: It's a Specification under Sun stewardship and then Oracle you now seem to have handed the stewardship over. Got a lot of WP:SUSTAIN ... over 20 years. To an extent this is a subpage of Java Platform, Enterprise Edition but too much WP:UNDUE there. Article could do with improvements and but the prose is quite good. This is a sort of spec J2EE webservers such as Tomcat, JBoss EAP, weblogic, Wildfly, Websphere etc work to. Not massively my scene.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC) On second thoughts its not Microsoft so destroy.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transwiki Useful verifiable information, and I would second the opinion expressed by the IP that this is anything but an incremental list of versions. The nom seems very poorly written in first assuming it's a software, then describing it as a changelog. Lacking WP:BEFORE. Samsara 18:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above I did agree that software was the wrong word to have used but I can tell you that I did perform a full BEFORE prior to nominating this for deletion. I stand by my WP:NOT issues with the content of the page regardless of what term we want to attach to it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- see WP:ITSUSEFUL - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you throw essays at people (meaningless, really, since they're ESSAYS), you should check that you've understood the argument the person is making. Samsara 13:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a version history belongs on a website, not in a Wikipedia article WP:NOT - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:GNG, lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - oddly, the article does not state in the lead what Java EE is or does - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Elmidae said it best: Wikipedia is not a README.TXT dump. Reyk _YO! 12:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT a data dump. On the other hand, this certainly looks useful, so if somebody wants to repurpose the text (perhaps there's another wiki that has different inclusion guidelines than we do), userfy it for them, so they can do what they want with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Vier[edit]

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

Promotion for Non notable bit part actress. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. "best known for New Girl, Dice, and Wingin' It", each single episodes in longrunning series, not the stuff of notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the actress. A few PR announcements about her making a web series is not independent. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 2 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) 13:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The roles played are significant, more than just bit parts, and she was nominated for a notable award. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actress, non-notable extra roles, and non-notable award nomination. Trillfendi (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure I see roles Eastmain is talking about. She was either a guest or a recurring on TV shows, and the only movie where her role could be considered significant is FAQs (film), and even there she doesn't seem like a huge part of it. Fails WP:NACTOR for the lack of significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The editor(s) behind the article tried to make her notable, but ultimately that is not case here.

Analyzing the references in the article (my searches failed to bring me something indepth in reliable secondary about her work or her biography so WP:GNG is failed as well):

2) and 3) are the same and are passing mentions of her by a name drop
4) A passing mention, where she is mentioned for a quote that is cited
5) Another passing mention of her by a name in the picture attached
6) "Minerva Vier especially good as a well-to-do patient" Not WP:SIGCOV
7) Just verifies that she is a part of the cast (not as a main part of it as well)
8) A passing mention of her by a name in the picture attached
9) "her horny cat (Minerva Vier)" is literally that is said about her. Not WP:SIGCOV.
10) Mentions in a listing
1 and 11) are WP:PRIMARY (official website and casting company) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Stephens (actor)[edit]

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

Promotion for Non notable bit part actor. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the actor, just a lot of him talking about himself in questionable sources. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator has removed the worst of the promotion [12]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:34, 2 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) 13:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The roles played are significant, more than just bit part. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WittyFeed[edit]

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

Seems like a fairly clear case of UPE. The article today remains overwhelmingly consistent with the version that was created by a sock and thus should really be G5 despite the number of intervening edits. Previous AfD closed with no consensus. There could be a notable topic here, but UPE and DENY suggest the right outcome remains a delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this text created by a confirmed sockpuppet, and amplified by a flock of kamikaze accounts, because its subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 2 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) 13:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gimubrc (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too much promotion. Sources read as obvious promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are classic cases of advertorial promotion with the usual format and profile photos. WP:TOOSOON applies. Agree with nom too. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, references don't show WP:GNG .THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:21, 15 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë de Givenchy[edit]

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

Not seeing any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources either in the article or online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete; flagrant peacock article with no real notability. Gimubrc (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Names dropping and nothing indicates subject passes WP:N and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The very definition of WP:NOTINHERITED: she married into a noble family and was a bridesmaid for Pippa Middleton. Otherwise she seems to run her own company which is the only criteria with which we can assess her notability, and in that she's non-notable. freshacconci (✉) 15:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy even. The best I could find was one ref in the UK's Daily Mail... Aoziwe (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Purely promotional; could have been speedied. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only C Magazine has significant coverage of her, otherwise all sources have only a passing mention. Article makes no claim of notability. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:11, 12 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) 20:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aristidis Moschos[edit]

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

Article has remained unsourced for more than a decade, has clearly been very roughly translated, the biography section is completely fails notability guidelines, and the article in general does not seem to meet notability standards either. In addition, the content reads like it was written by a family member or friend, introducing other NPOV issues. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 11:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 11:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 11:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The corresponding article in the Greek Wikipedia at el:Αριστείδης Μόσχος is longer and has more references. Those references may be enough to establish notability. The Greek article says that he had three gold records. If someone has access to Greek music charts, they might be able to confirm this claim. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek charts probably won't help as the subject died in 2001, there are no archives of the Greek charts before 2010, and they don't show certifications. Confirmation will have to come from Greek newspapers and magazines. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I listed this at the Greek delsort specifically to attempt attracting a translator, per Eastmain's information. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In Greece he is a well known master of santur; he is considered to be among the finest vitruosos of this traditional instrument. When Moschos died many Greek mainstream media published or uploaded obituaries for him. For example, the Greek daily Kathimerini in its printed version stated inter alia for the late Moschos that he was one of the most popular Greek artists of traditional music, and a master interpreter of santur ("Ορφάνεψε το σαντούρι του Αριστείδη Μόσχου", November 10, 2001). The Greek mainstream portal ogdoo.gr had an hommage on him right after his death, writing about his life, his art, stating the numerous collaboration of Moschos as a master folk instrumentalist (and sometimes credited as a composer, too) with many important Greek composers and singers like Stavros Xarchakos, Yannis Markopoulos, Giorgos Dalaras, Glykeria, Giannis Parios, Alkistis Protopsalti et.al. Moreover, a couple of years before his death the mainstream Greek daily Ta Nea hosted an interview of him, presented as "great musician" [13]. The Prefecture of Aitoloakarnania (the regional authority of his hometown, near Agrinio) had him honored for his life achievements as an artist (see in this page, where a photo of his three golden records [@Eastmain:] illustrates his uploaded biography). Finally, his life has been the subject of a diploma dissertation by a student at the Technological Educational Institute of Epirus in 2017. ——Chalk19 (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shown above he has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as national newspapers and therefore deserves a place in the encyclopedia and he has major claims of significance which have been shown to be verifiable above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 15 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Gilbert[edit]

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

Regardless of Gilbert's talent or his notoriety within a small cross-section of the Internet, there aren't enough reliable secondary sources to justify this article's existence at present. The only source not produced and published by Gilbert or Polygon is this Buzzfeed listicle, which is largely a collection of screenshots and other images. I couldn't find any coverage about him from any vaguely reliable tech news sites (excluding Polygon, of course). Jc86035 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jc86035 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jc86035 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jc86035 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources related to his work: The Verge (Stranger Things), Tor.com (Skyrim), Comicbook.com (Skyrim), Comicbook.com (Pokémon), Game Rant (Skyrim), Game Rant (Pokémon). I don't know if these establish notability, because they aren't about Gilbert himself and are really more like announcements than reviews of Gilbert's work. The latter five links are related to his work as an employee of Polygon. Jc86035 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was more coverage along the lines of the Verge I might feel different but judging him by the standards that I would a YouTuber, he lacks notability and coverage from reliable sources. I could see in a year or so an argument made under some amalgamation of his work which falls under NENT but for now just not seeing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON for a writer who does not yet meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC (has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award or honor" or "made a widely recognized contribution") - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:36, 14 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. The majority of arguments sided with RecycledPixels' rationale and sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biman Bangladesh Airlines Flight 60[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Runway over runs are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:EVENT guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Runway overruns are common, but in this case the plane disintegrated as a result. I’ve never heard of this happening in any other case. Doesn’t that make it notable? Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. WP:NOTANTINEWS insists on waiting a week before determining the notability of news events, and the hull loss might prove significant per WP:HEY. Having said that, there were no fatalities and runway runovers are fairly common. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 22:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're speculating here about what might develop for notability. That's why we're NOTNEWS. Let's not speculate - or hypthosize that HEY might occur. Let's judge notability now for which I don't see clear evidence of what will be lasting notability. If we really want to see which way this goes then we should draftify not keep in mainspace, but again WP:NOTNEWS is a policy for a reason as opposed to essays mentioned above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Write-off. One thing is a runway excursion or overrun and the other thing is a crashed plane that brakes in 3 pieces and where there are also casualties. (Gabinho^>:) 05:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete This type of accident is to common. If we are going to add everyday accidents such as these then it’ll become crowded. No one died and the aircraft did not catch fire nor did anything else out of the normal occurred. I am 100% against keeping it. It’s nothing special. 82.132.244.2 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A crash of a regularly scheduled commercial passenger airliner on an international flight, resulting in a total hull loss and multiple injuries, with no shortage of independent, international news sources covering it certainly meets notability standards. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tried to add some additional sources, but was getting edit conflicted, so I'll come back to it later, but there are no shortage of reliable sources to draw from. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Associated press, appearing in Washington Post - [14] and ABC News - [15]
Reuters - [16]
Additional regional sources that show up on google news. These will typically have more in-depth coverage, and these 4 particular sources have several follow-up articles as well.

Dhaka Tribune - [17] [18] [19]
Myanmar Times -[20] [21]
Daily Star (Bangladesh) - [22] [23] [24] [25]
BD News 24 - [26] [27]

These are just English-language searches. A Bangladeshi airline crashing in Myanmar is also going to have a lot of non-english sources that are harder for me to search for. Some examples trying some cut-and-paste searches from the Chinese language Wikipedia article on this crash turn up the following:

German language searches: [32] [33]
Spanish language searches: [34] [35] [36]
French [37] Vietnamese [38], I'll stop now... RecycledPixels (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per RecycledPixels, should add reliable sources listed above and I think passes notability- -MA Javadi (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The aircraft was a hull loss, breaking into 3 pieces. Hull losses will automatically meet WP:NOTE. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. The crash meets the WP:AIRCRASH essay (size, hull loss, injuries). An international passenger flight breaking up into 3 pieces on landing is far from routine. We had international coverage of this recent event, and at this point it is too soon to evaluate SUSTAINED. Icewhiz (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep: despite no fatalities, the injuries and the hull loss indicate a serious incident that will attract an investigation into the cause, and until the cause is known, it is a matter of just waiting on our side. --Minoa (talk) 11:41, 15 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Milgram Forrest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In light of the recent successful AfD for Pauline Barrett, I am nominating others who have received the same non-notability-establishing Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient coverage established of this remarkable woman. Further information can be found at https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/timescolonist/obituary.aspx?n=maureen-forrest-milgram&pid=163503379, showing her significant roles in other organizations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion as that seems to be her only notable achievement - references are thin and sometimes trivial - no major coverage - except for the Queen's Award, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE - Epinoia (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 09:39, 9 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Group SJR[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. It took me three seconds to realize it's written in extremely promotional tone and that certain needs to be corrected for NPOV; but Fast Week, as I understand it is a respectable business magazine and it's covered in quite a depth. I've culled out all the press release type sources and I think routine trivial announcements coming from press releases should be culled out, but at the core, I can't really support deleting it given in-depth coverage. Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Leaning towards delete since as an agency, it doesn't look like there is any great exceptional work that would make it notable. Exploreandwrite (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a company history, without much of any claim of notability other than earning a "Shorty" award. Beyond not seeing a point to the article, I could not find coverage that was independent of the advertising industry. This is important since many advertising trade journals (and awards!) are basically mutual back-scratching arrangements.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more discussion on whether there is adequate coverage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 9 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 (WP:SNOW) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP (disambiguation)[edit]

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

DAB page with only two entries, one of which is a clear primary topic and one which doesn't have its own article. Hatnote on United Kingdom Independence Party would suffice, and reduce the number of clicks for a user Joseph2302 (talk) 07:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that a hatnote is all that would be needed, with the added note about the company's name change. Something like, Not to be confused with UKi Media & Events, formerly known as UKIP Media & Events. though ideally somehow with less redundancy. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:21, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any other articles to include in the dab page, so there's just one non-primary entry, which makes this page redundant to a hatnote. – Uanfala (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, but definitely add the hatnote. Gimubrc (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, disambiguation is not required, and take the redirect UKIP Media and Events to WP:RfD because it is not mentioned at the target article. There should not be a hatnote to an article that doesn't mention the term. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, there's a clear primary topic and a hatnote can be used (if even required which I doubt) for the other topic. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Politic[edit]

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

This footballer never playes in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not play in a full professional league. Fail WP:NSOCCER. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Quentin X (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a fuly pro league (yet). Would usually say to draftify, but there's nothing here to save. --SuperJew (talk) 21:45, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Measures[edit]

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

Non-notable independent film. Doesn't star any notable actors either. Natg 19 (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced - does not meet WP:NFO - Epinoia (talk) 23:54, 6 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) 06:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NFILM. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:53, 9 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 Cortomobile#Festival and stops , where it is mentioned (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Car Film Festival[edit]

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

The article has no references supporting the notability of this event. The two in-line references in the article do not mention the event. I am unable to find anything with a Google News search. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cortomobile where it is mentioned. Seems to be a film festival with a maximum of two people viiewings at a time. Not independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cortomobile - although, due to lack of references, Cortomobile may be nominated for deletion as well - Epinoia (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary Road (Vancouver)[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Subject is a 6-mile road that passes through suburban housing areas on the literal edge of Vancouver proper. Has 250 results from one of the region's local daily papers, almost all of which is WP:ROUTINE coverage. Sounder Bruce 04:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 04:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 04:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable on its own merits. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article failws WP:N. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for a road is not simply the ability to verify that it exists, or even the ability to verify that it gets mentioned in media coverage of things that happened on it: the notability test is the ability to reliably source some substantive context for what might make the road historically, politically, culturally or socially significant. (Christopher Street in New York City, for example, does not have an article just because it exists — it has an article because of Stonewall.) But the sources here are not showing that at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nominated in bad faith as retaliation and an attack by the nominator. Also in bad faith is the nominator gutted the article by removing all the sections and most of the text so now the article looks lousy. Major street in that city. WP:Wikiproject Highways has better experts that know what should stay. General Wikipedia editors are generally not knowledgable about the criteria for roads, which this meets. Aerostar3 (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user was blocked for being a sockpuppet and for hounding the OP. This vote appears to be made in bad-faith. INeedSupport ^:3 17:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The road is not the actual subject of any the sources except for the routine local government note that it was getting upgrades. No notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aerostar3. ——SerialNumber54129 09:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG on the reliable source part. INeedSupport ^:3 17:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Suburban arterial road that has no evidence of notability. Dough4872 00:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GEOROAD says, "local roads, streets and motorway service areas...are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject" - crime reports, upgrade notices and naming stories are not significant coverage - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a encyclopedia not a road guide or map site. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:23, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Krag[edit]

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

It’s quite pitiful that this even has to go through this process when it was such an obvious A7. And that’s all I’m gonna say. The deletion writes itself. Trillfendi (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:24, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some non-English references and included a translation of the headline on each. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is barely even one sentence.... Trillfendi (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An intitle:"Maja Krag" search turns out nothing reliable and significant, AFAICT. Maja Krag site:.dk searches give us a little chat about make-up in Elle Danmark, and a couple of mentions from 2013–2014 when she dated Nicki Bille Nielsen.[39][40][41] All-in-all there's not enough coverage here to write a meaningful minimal BLP. Sam Sailor 14:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:18, 12 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Burba & Hayes[edit]

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

not notable Sandcherry (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Undisclosed COI promo, presumably undisclosed paid editing, same as other spam from creator Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Priest Widefox; talk 06:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Burba Hotel Network (Burba & Hayes) is a division of Northstar Travel Group which does not have a Wiki article. Obvious promotional material. Sandcherry (talk) 01:47, 10 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 as WP:SNOW. This nomination doesn't seem to have a snowball's chance in hell to pass. There is a consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adams (commentator)[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR for his book and commentating career. fails WP:NPOL, he was deputy mayor of a small municipality in Sydney (which is in fact now defunct LibStar (talk) 02:47, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is already enough good sources in the article to satisfy GNG. And there is more in the history. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Failure to run WP:BEFORE. I have made some improvements to the page, and tidied it up a little. Here: [42] are the hits on the second of his books that Trump tweeted about. Frankly the guy sounds like a cross between a loose cannon and a clown with a very loose grip on facts. But he's notable. Not liking a political activist is not a reason to delete his page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets GNG. Sufficient IRS about subject already in article. SNOW I suggest. Not someone I share ideas with but they are notable, being covered in a wide variety of sources over a sustained period of time. Aoziwe (talk) 08:37, 10 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. No evidence has been presented that this embassy meets inclusion criteria Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Argentina, Helsinki[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. all this article does is confirm that it exists. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an article about this embassy's mirror image: the Finnish embassy in Argentina: "Ylen saama asiakirja paljastaa, kuinka Suomen suurlähetystö sulki Argentiinassa ovensa diktatuuria pakenevilta – väkivaltaisuuksissa katosi myös Suomen kansalainen" [The document received by YLE reveals how the Embassy of Finland closed its doors to dictatorship in Argentina - the Finnish citizen also disappeared in the violence. The embassy in Buenos Aires gave instructions in the summer of 1976, when soldiers had taken power in Argentina.]. Yle Uutiset (in Finnish). April 1, 2018. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Embassies and consulates are sometimes located in historic buildings or buildings of particular architectural merit. They may also be built to resist explosions and earthquakes better than other buildings in their city. So it would be worthwhile to look for references about the building where this embassy is located, including the Finnish equivalent of the National Register of Historic Places. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The embassy doesn't have its own building, and instead it's in an office building (image on Commons). -kyykaarme (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG applies here - the embassy has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - basically all the article does is say its an embassy and give the address - Wikipedia is not a phonebook WP:YELLOWPAGES - Epinoia (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not written very comprehensively. In its current state, it looks like a delete. However, looks can be deceiving. There is a rich history of the embassy, its role in the Dirty War included. Wikipedia rules are that notability is the key to an article, not the quality of writing. This is notable. Newseditingpedian (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor article and fail passes WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:41, 14 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. Seems like there is a bit of disagreement whether the newly added sources satisfy WP:SIGCOV, but they appear to have addressed the WP:1E issues and most people commenting on the newly expanded article appear to support keeping. The earlier stage of the discussion was more supportive of deletion or redirecting, so this borders on a "no consensus" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Craig (Secret Service)[edit]

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

Pretty clear failure of WP:1E. Subject was a bodyguard assigned to US President Theodore Roosevelt and was killed in a traffic accident. Article is a perma-stub (created in 2006) with no realistic chance of expansion. While tragic, the incident is no more than a foot note in history. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the news article that says they had a tribute for him 100 years later, or any other news article mentioning that. How much was written about him after he died? They say people wrote about his death around the nation, it not just local coverage, but was just a passing mention or was there any significant coverage? Dream Focus 03:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did get some short term news coverage because the accident involved President Roosevelt. But it was not WP:SUSTAINED and he has no claim to any kind of notability beyond his dying in a traffic crash that also involved the president. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does seem to fail WP:1E.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the notability of being the first Secret Service killed in the line of duty. TJRC (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I'd also be fine with the Redirect suggested by Sam Sailor below. TJRC (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redirect per below. An existing mention in United States Secret Service#Early years is more than sufficient. It'd be different only if he were killed fending off a would-be assassin. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a categorized {{R from person}} and {{R to section}} to United States Secret Service#Early years where he is mentioned. If it was me, I'd simply have WP:BLARED the article. If that is not contested, a discussion at AFD is not really needed. I have added a few book cites (there are many more to cite, but I think they give the same very short story), and I also dug up a citation to the Chicago Tribune, 2002. But I agree with nom, it is WP:1E case, and as a stand-alone article, it does not meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Still, as the first person to die in the line of duty, a redirect is appropriate. Sam Sailor 18:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested would seem to be entirely appropriate. It is plausible someone could search for him on here, but the coverage in the United States Secret Service would seem to be sufficient (I would agree with User:Clarityfiend that if he had died during an assassination attempt then he probably would need a seperate article). Dunarc (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Secret Service#Early years as suggested. Per my WP:BEFORE I do see wide coverage of Craig being the first to be killed on duty in the Secret Service, however there's not much meat in the coverage beyond details of the incident - making this a WP:BIO1E. Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've substantially expanded the article today. William Craig is not merely notable for the way he died. He played a substantial role in the Roosevelt household, especially with the president's children, and establishing a security perimeter around their vacation home at Sagamore Hill that enabled them to enjoy some privacy. See Morris, Edmund. Theodore Rex, pp. 123, 137, 142 (Random House Publishing Group, 2010). Morever, William Craig had some notability prior to his death in 1902, as a hunter of counterfeiters. See Altoona Tribune, p. 6 (July 10, 1901); The Tennessean, p. 3 (January 22, 1901); Meyersdale Republic, p. 1 (August 15, 1901); Pittsburgh Daily Post, p. 1 (July 9, 1901); The Philadelphia Times (July 10, 1901). Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything beyond the sort of run of the mill coverage one would expect for a secret service man doing his job at the time. Likewise his involvement with Roosevelt and his family was not unusual and many agents became friendly with their protectees. Sorry, but I still believe his only real claim to notability lies in the sad circumstances surrounding his death. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more material from the Chicago Tribune:

“Is Master of Sword; An English Horse Guard Who is Almost a Magician”, Chicago Tribune, p. 25 (April 2, 1893): “he carries his mastery to a point that makes one think of the feats of the mystics of India.”
“William Craig, Swordsman; Wonderful Feats of a Scotchman Who Has Seen War”, Chicago Tribune, p. 25 (February 9, 1896): “No other swordsman in the country has ever attempted the startling feats which the professor performs with his broadsword.”

So, we've got coverage in reliable sources about his swordsmanship, & about his hunts for counterfeiters. Plus we have coverage about his work at Sagamore Hill for the POTUS. All separate from being one of only two Secret Service agents who ever died while protecting the POTUS, for which he is at least as notable as many others who have Wikipedia articles.[43] I agree he wasn't a hugely important figure, but he wouldn't have all that coverage if he was just run of the mill either. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over a hundred years later he did make news and got bagpipes played and whatnot at his grave. He was given coverage for more than just this one event as Anythingyouwant did prove. Dream Focus 16:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:TonyTheTiger, User:TJRC, User:Clarityfiend, User:Sam Sailor, User:Dunarc, and User:Icewhiz, what do you think about the overhauled article? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My position is unchanged. Weak Keep, with the proposed redirect also acceptable. To elaborate, I think he's barely notable, but is its for one-event, so I can understand the call to deletion I think there's enough about him it's worth keeping in its own article, because that will necessarily be trimmed if moved into the redirect target. I think keeping is the better resolution, but I can see the case for the other dispositions. So, weak keep. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 15 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Jets[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Only 24 games in the Slovak Extraliga and has spent the vast majority of his career in the British second-tier league. Tay87 (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON and no enough coverage, QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 13:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's 38 so I don't think TOOSOON applies. Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Very unlikely he'll met the criteria for hockey notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ayelet Gneezy[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article, created by a Noamgneezy who has only edited this and Uri Gneezy. Edwardx (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unsourced content suggests that the author may pass WP:NACADEMIC #1. Supposedly, her famous paper is award-winning, and cited. Are there academic AFD discussants who can shed some light on this for me.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Icewhiz below.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her work has been featured in The Economist [44] ("a team of researchers led by Ayelet Gneezy...") and the Harvard Business Review [45], [46]. These are articles about three different pieces of work, suggesting that she is notable in her own right and not simply because of one particular study that she was involved in. For me it's a clear keep on both WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C7 grounds.Polyharrisson (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links to these articles and one other to her page, with a brief description of the work.Polyharrisson (talk) 11:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while brief mentions exist in a scant few sources, none provide biographical relevance or state a claim toward notability. Judging by the page creator, this is a vanity page. -- Netoholic @ 01:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— Lack of in-depth coverage from multiple RS.Tamsier (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- a quick search on Google News returns pages of results on a range of different topics, including in Time [47] and The New Yorker [48]. I'm not sure what you mean by in-depth coverage. A feature article that is specifically about her? If that is the standard for inclusion, very few of the academics on Wikipedia would make the cut. Polyharrisson (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions about her or her work are not sufficient for a stand alone article. One of the sources is slightly better although it's reliability debatable. But even if that passes RS, the other source is merely a passing mention which is not enough to establish notability.Tamsier (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Gneezy is quoted in a Bloomberg article [49] about robotic Barbies as 'an associate professor ... who has studied how people react to promises honored and broken.' Polyharrisson (talk) 21:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also in a Boston Globe article about Panera [50] as someone 'whose research has touched on consumer psychology as well as pay-what-you-can and pay-what-you-want business models.' Polyharrisson (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is an NBC bay area story [51] about a girl selling lemonade, she's quoted as 'an expert in “pay what you want” studies'. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in USA Today [52] commenting on Tips for Jesus. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here [53] is a 2018 article from the Guardian where she is quoted liberally. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me like a clear case for WP:PROF#7 : 'Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark'. She has a significant number of quotations in national media (and regional media outside San Diego) as a result of her expertise in PWYW. This in addition to full-length press articles (e.g. the Economist article I quoted earlier and added to her page) describing her research. Polyharrisson (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps we should take the page of a marketing professor with a slightly larger grain of salt than we do most other pages... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per PROF#1 based on google scholar Gneezy has a h-index of 14 (with 8 papers cited more than 100 times each). She's also quoted/covered a bit in news media (e.g. gNews has 64 news items - which is generally much more than the usual academic) - but I did not evaluate these in depth. I'll also note that merge to Uri Gneezy (her husband - [54] - also an academic (clearly passing NPROF by holding an endowed chair) is possible, though I think a standalone is better in this case. Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Her work is widely cited. And becasue the topics are appealing, she has been covered in the press for years. Point is, she's not just a talking head reporters ring up for a comment, the articles are about research she had done. Such coverage, even when brief, can be WP:SIGCOV in a way that just being asked for a comment is not. For example: Financial Times 2013 "Ayelet Gneezy, Uri Gneezy, Leif D Nelson and Amber Brown, also marketing academics, experimented with different pricing schemes for people invited to buy photographs of themselves on a rollercoaster. Some people were told that half the money they paid would go to a charity for sick children. Some were invited to pay whatever they wished. But it was those two options in combination that worked wonders: if patrons were invited to pay what they pleased, and told that half their payment would go to charity, revenues and profits surged. But this scheme seems to rely on a cognitive illusion. It could equally be described thus: “we’ll grab half of your charitable donation and give you this photo in exchange; the more you give to the charity, the more we’ll take.” Not so appealing. And there is a twist. Gneezy et al found that, while profits jumped, fewer people actually bought photos if they were told half the money was going to charity. Were the people who would have paid a little and taken the photograph afraid of looking cheap once the charity was mentioned? Perhaps they found it easier to walk away." I won't try everyone's patience with more, similar examples. But her studies get this kind of coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:04, 13 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ginsberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominated in 2009, with a "no consensus" result. Not seeing any better references in the article or online ten years later. Edwardx (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some more recent references about "wealth creation" seminars where he spoke. Those references, together with the earlier ones from reliable sources, probably add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain Seminars don't dictate notability, but sources like The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Toronto Star, do.--Biografer (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn’t established but the constant reoccurrence around here of Amazon links to people’s books is starting to get extremely ridiculous. Trillfendi (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS are a couple of passing mentions of his seminars, and an article about selling on eBay with again a relatively minor mention. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Between "keep" and "delete" Ok, so my take on this issue is vague. On one hand, the subject is notable because of the above sources, such as The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Toronto Star (and I added The Boston Globe, for the verification purpose). On the other hand, who cares about who sells what and how much on eBay. People sell all kinds of stuff, and all if not most are "successful bidders". So, the question remains, if we allow it to happen, will people start writing articles on "bidders" that our readers wont care about?--Biografer (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see also the article on his one book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Buy,_Sell,_and_Profit_on_eBay.The presence of the two articles indicates the promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am seeing a red link. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That link was malformed: How to Buy, Sell, and Profit on eBay. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few passing references do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have significant coverage in WP:RS. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is almost WP:A7able, but not quite. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Between weak delete and somewhat strong delete. No depth of notability in any sources. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:25, 15 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.