Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 September	30 September >

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. JGHowes ^talk 01:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Duhart[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Little significant coverage, most stems from routine roster transactions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. In terms of WP:GNG, the only significant coverage I can find is from the Newport News Daily Press, e.g., here and here. GNG requires that such coverage exists in multiple independent sources. Accordingly, unless more is uncovered, this one does not make the cut. Will reconsider if significant coverage is found in other sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Reporting on transactions is routine sports coverage and he fails to meet the GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Sandals1 (talk) 15:11, 1 October 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chase McLaughlin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Has little in terms of significant coverage from reliable sources. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Haven't researched fully yet, but McLaughlin was a first-team All-Big 10 placekicker, and I am finding some significant coverage, e.g., a 2-page feature story from 2016 (Part 1/Part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when he passes WP:NGRIDIRON this Sunday as the Chargers' new kicker (signed to the active roster today). Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: he now officially passes WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he now meets WP:NGRIDIRON, thus rendering the original deletion rationale moot. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:29, 7 October 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Larsson[edit]

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

This article was originally created by banned user Sander.v.Ginkel, recreated by a Slowking sock, recreated again by a SvG sock, and has now been "cleaned up" and reinstated. It has three sources. The first is worthless ([1]). The second does not mention her. The third is a directory. This article - every version of it, ever, pretty much, fails WP:NOTDIR. Subject-specific notability guidelines don't trump WP:V/WP:GNG/WP:NOT, especially for living people. Guy (help!) 23:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No bigger achievement than representing your country, especially at a Summer Olympics, which is a senior tournament for the women unlike for the men (year dependant); admittedly didn't appear, but still made 3apps elsewhere (here). This being enough was most recently noted at AfD/Batbayar Khash-Erdene, where it was discussed in good depth, though I'd predict more can be found in the archives. R96Skinner (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the women's team article. I cannot find a source on her with a basic GSearch. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How would a merge into Sweden women's national football team (Edit: or Älvsjö AIK, if you meant there - same argument anyway) work? One player, who (theoretically) would be deemed non-notable here, would have a blurb on the national team article? That would be odd. Merging, player article wise, isn't usually done at NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a perfectly sensible solution where players have no significant biographical sources, and I definitely suport it. Guy (help!) 09:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as then it would eventually just become a "list of..." type of article which isn't a positive for a club/national team article that is, obviously, about the team - not the player(s). R96Skinner (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's the worst possible solution. If they're not notable enough for their own articles, they're definitely not notable enough to have a short biography in the much more widely-read articles about the teams. That would require more, not less, notability than having one's own article. It's a reasonable solution for a sort-of-notable band with four members, but not for a football team. /Julle (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and given she was at the Olympics I refuse to believe there aren't offline Swedish sources out there if any can't be found online. Giant Snowman 08:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, does NFOOTBALL introduce an exception to GNG and BLP to allow articles with no substantive reliable independent sources? Guy (help!) 09:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. She made three international appearances, and was included in the squad at two major tournaments (Olympics and UEFA Women's Championship). It can be difficult to find online sources for women's footballers prior to the 21st century, though I have expanded the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG almost as hard as the various fictional entries that have clogged AfD these last weeks. The only source listed that even starts to qualify is a single sentence recap of her season. Verba Delenda Est! Rockphed (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NFOOTY#1 "Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match ..., or the Olympic Games. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." My emphasis: the fact that we can't find more coverage online from 23 years ago (and probably in Swedish) is not a reason to ignore this guideline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have to be sources out there as she comepted in the 1996 Summer Olympics which is the highest tier without the World Cup for a women's football player. HawkAussie (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and has competed in the 1996 Summer Olympics.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTY, and an Olympian to boot. Swedish language sources from that era are going to be hard to find - we establish notability criteria to avoid having to find them - and this one isn't even borderline. Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 5 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 01:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zonin[edit]

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

Article has no sources, seems like an advertisement, and has no true claim to notability. KingofGangsters (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They have minimal press coverage. They have an article on Forbes. Other than that, all they have are press releases and reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonstephen0 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A long-unreferenced stub article about a company. The recent Forbes Contributor article might provide a basic reference about their branding (despite its advertorial wording), but neither it nor anything else which I've found gives a strong indication that this is more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 05:45, 6 October 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. Unclear if he must die, but according to those who attended this AfD, he must be deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pac-Man Must Die![edit]

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

Was not able to find any significant coverage on this from reliable, third-party sources. Not sure if the sources this page uses are reliable, either. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 22:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage, seems to be just a coding project made for fun. While I would like to try it at some point, my opinion doesn't have determine notability. In this case, the game is not notable, with no third-party coverage. Utopes (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete find no reliable independent sources, It’s not notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saboteur (cancelled video game)[edit]

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

WP:NN planned product that was cancelled and never released and no assertion of any importance whatsoever other than the passing mention in IGN. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete We can source this was a game that was planned, cancelled, and ended up closing a studio. Probably should be discussed at Eidos Interactive to that point. Once content is merged, this article can be deleted (its not a reasonable search term, one will likely get to that via the Saboteur disambig page. --Masem (t) 19:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, possibly after a minimal merge as suggested by Masem. Mccapra (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough topic to consider it notable. Barca (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:50, 4 October 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) 20:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Lobato[edit]

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

The article doesn't indicate any notability aside from being briefly signed by a few NFL teams. He has never appeared in a professional game as far as I can tell. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Played college football at Division II Northern Colorado, and does not satisfy either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Also not finding significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources of the type required to pass WP:GNG. Found this from The Denver Post and a good deal of passing mentions in game coverage but not enough IMO to pass the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I didn't find any coverage that wouldn't be typical for a college quarterback. He has no major awards and my search didn't find any evidence that he ever played in a regular season NFL game.Sandals1 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete., No significant coverage for a college player, does not meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 06:41, 4 October 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Your Glasses[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Seeking redirect to Russian Red. ∯WBG^converse 08:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 08:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... There goes the first gold-certified album down the drain... If only you or someone else can also nominate Russian Red and get that removed too, that'll be a boon. Lourdes 12:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lourdes - Any non-promotional reliable source? Per the last Promusicae chart which featured the album, it does not seem so. Not locating prominent reviews, either. ∯WBG^converse 12:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reliable sources certifying the Gold status and passing of WP:NALBUM.[2][3][4] Don't get me wrong, but if you want to redirect this to RR, just go ahead; no need for this AfD. Lourdes 06:45, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability for WP:NALBUM seems to be indicated in the sources Lourdes linked above. OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OhKayeSierra. Meets NALBUM. Vermont (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. Redirects are cheap. See also WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wood (actor)[edit]

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

"Unsung Swordsman" and AVN/XRCO Hall of Fame alone are no longer considered adequate reasoning for meeting WP:PORN BIO. See discussion on Brandon Iron, Sascha and others. I don't see any coverage in third-party sources either that give him a pass for notability. KelseyWill (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. PORNBIO is obsolete. ミラ P 00:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable actor, fail WP:GNG.--Nahal^(T) 09:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The vast majority of Keep comments were from socks. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyla Carter[edit]

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

I think this is just WP:TOOSOON, she's had a few episode voice roles but there is no actual coverage, and the same goes for the Broadway tours, which say nothing more than x did y. I also think that we should give a bit more weight to BLPs of minors like this when there is just a dearth of real coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the WP:RSs in the article which show that she meets WP:GNG. Also an award winner. Not WP:TOOSOON. Wm335td (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

being an award winner on its own doesn’t equate to notability. Only if they are notable awards. Which RS would you be referring to?Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per these sources in the article: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

They're by no means great however I would consider the reviews to be okay,

Admittedly I've not found any better sources elsewhere however I would consider those above to be satisfactory,

IMHO by a bare minimum she meets GNG and judging by the important roles she's had in TV series'(her IMDB) I would say she also meets NACTOR. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 13:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gans, Andrew (2018). "Tony Winner Karen Ziemba and More Set for National Tour of White Christmas". Playbill. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
^ Ellis, Jeffrey. "BWW Review: IRVING BERLIN'S WHITE CHRISTMAS Brings Musical Theater Joy to the Holiday Season". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
^ Robb, Stephanie. "BWW Review: Dreaming of a White Christmas in Atlanta? Look No Further than Irving Berlin's WHITE CHRISTMAS at The Fox Theatre". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
^ "Review: 'Sound of Music' seems suddenly relevant in San Jose". The Mercury News. 10 November 2016. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
^ "Newsday Review: Let Engeman's 'Gypsy' entertain you, yes sir". John W. Engeman Theater. 21 September 2017.
^ "Local Student, Kyla Carter, to Star in NUMBER THE STARS in NYC". 28 October 2014. Retrieved 12 September 2019.
^ Desk, BWW News. "NUMBER THE STARS to Run 11/14-17 at Davenport Theatre". BroadwayWorld.com.

Just a note that BroadwayWorld is far from a reliable source and they barely mention here even so. Also Patch is a super local outlet - most neighborhoods have them. They aren't the type of widespread coverage/readership we require and I am very, very opposed to keeping a BLP on a 13 year old based on very, very flimsy sourcing. Praxidicae (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay I wasn't aware of that, I personally would consider those above to be okay (IMHO the sources in the article should be all be removed including the non-review Broadway ones), As for Patch - I would consider local sources to be okay - It's not uncommon for local ones to be included in bLP articles.

(edit conflict) I would hardly call the reviews above "flimsy" ....they're not great granted but they're not flimsy either. Thanks, –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 13:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that local sources can't be used, but they do not establish notability. Local sources don't have the readership to establish notability but more importantly, they often don't have the editorial oversight that I would say is necessary (in some cases.) As far as the Patch in particular, I would say that goes even more for them as it's hyperlocal. This discussion is pretty relevant for what I'm referring to. It's basically like if NextDoor published local news. This particular patch piece is written by a *neighbor* which is essentially someone who just signed up and wrote it. Praxidicae (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this source doesn't even mention a single character she played, so it's as much about her as it is the sound tech. This is just the same as one of the newsday sources, copied to the venue's blog and this is just a press release Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said I consider the sources to be satisfactory and fine for this article, Thanks. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article was created by "Kyladcarter" so obvious WP:COI issues - to say she "starred" in The Sound of Music and White Christmas is a stretch as she had only supporting roles - while the productions may have received coverage, it doesn't appear that Kyla Carter did - WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple notable productions; while Carter has had a number of roles none of them are particularly significant and the productions, TV shows, etc, not particularly notable - Epinoia (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RSs the article shows that she meets WP:GNG. She was billed as a principal actor (not supporting) in both Broadway shows, and was interviewed by Fox News, ^[1] as well as coverage in many Broadway World reviews, specific to her performance.
She also has principal roles in TV series'(her IMDB) I would say she also meets WP:NACTOR. Onward05 (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this article was not created by "Kyladcarter" as per the "talk page" it has been stated that the user that did create the page used her name as a "username" not understanding what it could possibly imply. If fact, as stated, he/she is not even in the same country as "Kyladcarter" Therefore, there is no WP:COI issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onward05 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ FOX. ""White Christmas" in Orlando". WOFL. Retrieved 2019-09-11.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems to meet WP:NACTOR due mainly to her stage work. In addition, while I understand the concern that there was no significant coverage from any one source that is unanimously considered reputable, there seems to be plenty of coverage from middle of the road sources that deal with the musical theater world to establish her as a notable stage actor. I agree that her award should not count towards notability, as she won the award for "Best Child Actor" at the Long Island 'Encore' Theater Award, since it's a non-notable, local award founded in 2013. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, based on what sources? Praxidicae (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her many reviews as a principal actress in professional Broadway shows (including Gypsy), as well as a television interview for Fox News. Also, her voice work is significat and notable. This is not an actress with two sentences on an animated television series. This is an actress that Dreamworks wrote an original song for in Season 4 of "Trolls: The Beat Goes On" and has appeared as a recurring and significant character for 7 seasons and counting. Again, imho she she seems to meet WP:NACTOR

These references are a few of many.

<ref>http://www.fox35orlando.com/good-day/379413324-video?fbclid=IwAR3hXgCB16ggRhWzFJmkSghtAtSgE9uMzJ6JOQ1S7GqbJnteCt6IBDPVvQc/ref>

<ref>https://www.broadwayworld.com/nashville/article/BWW-Review-IRVING-BERLINS-WHITE-CHRISTMAS-Brings-Musical-Theater-Joy-to-the-Holiday-Season-20181114?fbclid=IwAR2ekCv8L7KwqUO0Ej_Ta5ITyMHbygp5yquV2La6k0zwTVDFz1b1oSYAKek/ref>

<ref>http://www.williamsonherald.com/features/entertainment/franklin-man-co-stars-in-tpac-s-holiday-hit-white/article_b6ef6856-e89a-11e8-916b-fbf2c0d148af.html?fbclid=IwAR3Nfeo5hkkB-OQeWzlv7GKmKP4snwqwS28ykx6hjNHkacKXL3uWFOgCacM/ref> Onward05 (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the later two of those do speak about her by name and accolade her because of her performance, they are not in depth treatments of her as an actor. You also claim she had an original song written for her to perform; do you have a reliable source for that claim? Or is it, like the rest of your claims, as verifiable as string theory? Rockphed (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we could go around in circles argueing about the same six sources, or we could just delete the page and not bat an eye when it gets remade in 6 years about a 20 year old actress who just got cast as Maria in the revival of The Sound of Music on Broadway. Until then, lets try to keep the rumor mongering and unfounded claims off wikipedia. Rockphed (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like I said, as have others on this thread, there are plenty of resources listed in the article that are legit, including a tv interview for Fox News that mentions her as one of the stars in White Christmas and notable as per wikipedia criteria. Her Dreamworks and Nickelodeon jobs also meet the needs of WP:NACTOR and are considered satisfactory. I don't appreciate the attack. I am not rumor mongering and I have not listed unfounded claims. "Season 4, Episode 5 Smidgician / DJ's Got Talent" credits the actress whose character is clearly singing the song. <ref>https://www12.watchcartoonsonline.eu/watch/trolls-the-beat-goes-on-s04e05-smidgician-djs-got-talent/?fbclid=IwAR1NPIbXjiVbbRJWSDQwtXrpQjqLl9gBRSOQd06I2ligLRHeRx5tEFIuuMg/ref> We can keep the page and as you stated, when she becomes Maria in six years in a revival of Sound of Music, the wikipedia article can be updated. Onward05 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "watch cartoons online" is a reliable source, no matter how you cut it. I don't think referencing things to title text in videos is good practice (referencing a fact to a documentary's voiceover is even iffy). I've already looked at your 3 best sources and found them lacking. Also, I struck your keep here because you had already thrown out a keep above. Rockphed (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The actress sang the song that was written by Dreamworks for her character CJ Suki in the show "Trolls, The Beat Goes On." You stated that I was rumor mongering. I am not. You continue to engage in behavior which is unacceptable for Wikipedia and causing disruption. Try to offer critial anaylsis and advice. Attacking other users and their work without warrent or cause is inappropriate behavior. Do your own research and stop asking others to do it for you. The information is out there, cited in the article and you seem to want to turn a blind eye toward it. I have looked at the 25 sources, in detail and as I have already stated, as others did as well, and I consider the sources to be satisfactory including the local ones considering it was equity work, not community theater. And don't edit what I write. It is unethical. The discussion was relisted. Please be non-bias and keep it to facts, not your opinions please. Onward05 (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are tons of sources available to prove the legitimacy of this article. 24 are listed in the article itself and are all valid sources under the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

When time is taken to look at the provided sources you will find in fact she is notable under WP:GNG

Jane776 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like somebody added a few more sources since I last looked at this. Jane776, which 3 do you think best establish WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Rockphed (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are satisfactory. WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are met. Onward05 (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Professional stage work, principal roles and recurring voice over work for major networks meets WP:NACTOR. Sources cited also seem to meet the criteria for WP:GNG. TheMirrorOfErised1 (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided are perfectly fine for this article and complies with the WP:NACTOR. The sources that are cited also meet the criteria of WP:GNG.

She is listed on her IMDB as the character of CJ suki for Trolls: The Beat Goes On and this is also listed on the official Trolls: The Beat Goes On IMDB page aswell.

She is also featured in an interview with fox news for the Broadway show White Christmas that she starred in. I say that there is enough on her to keep this article. Matrix107 (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the criteria at WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Needs expansion, not deletion.4meter4 (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elucidate which sources support meeting GNG? I think this is trending toward keep (even after the rampant socking gets removed), so at this point I mostly want to know what I missed about the sources. Rockphed (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this after a "keep" closure because most "keep" opinions in the second part of the discussions are by now-blocked socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kyladcarter/Archive.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I went through the sources in the article and posted an assessment at Talk:Kyla Carter#Source assessment. There are a lot of mentions in passing, but none that provide any significant coverage of the subject, and most of the sources are not reliable. This falls far short of what we would expect for a biography of a 13-year-old kid. – bradv🍁 21:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per Bradv. Only 'weak' as I don't find his argument compelling, only convincing enough to delete. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment creator has now been blocked for abusively using multiple accounts. See User:Kyladcarter. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:08, 2 October 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. Consensus, though not unanimous, is clear. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan A cricket team in India in 2019[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. International tournaments from two second tier teams are not notable. Ajf773 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While the matches are FC/LA, they are by a team below the top international level. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Matches with first-class and List A status. The tour satisfies WP:GNG, with sufficient coverage and match reports in newspapers. [5] [6] [7]. Dee 03 11:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ya I also agree per nom for proposing the article to be deleted as series involving second tier teams may not be needed and they are not played with international status. Abishe (talk) 15:31, 30 September 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes[edit]

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

Well for the living people on this list, this is a BLP violation. There's no reason to call out private people for mistakes they have might have made which they would probably rather fade into obscurity, and making a point of making sure that these mistakes are specifically called out and tied to their names forever.

We are writing here about people who are essentially private citizens. They are not in politics, or church leaders, or leading important businesses or other major institutions in society, or otherwise public figures. They are guys who can throw a good fastball. It is for that reason, and no other, that they are of interest and have an article here.

So maybe we should leave these people alone.

We don't have "Bassoon players who drive Fords" or "Skydivers who have been divorced" or what have you.

So "Private citizens who have made a mistake, so the Wikipedia has decided to use its position as one of the world's most read websites to scream this at the world so it will follow them forever" is similarly not a useful intersection of two qualities.

BTW "Well, but it's easily findable elsewhere on the internet" is not, never has been, and never can be an acceptable argument for including *any* material in the Wikipedia that we don't want, and I trust the closer will discount such arguments.

Arguments to effect of "Well, but according to the rules of my hobby website, WP:RS and other WP:OTHERALLCAPSARGUMENTS, we are permitted to bully people in this way, so let's" are permissible I suppose, if you want to be that sort of person.

Yeah it's be possible to go thru the list and just remove the people who aren't dead. That'd make the list an even more useless intersection of, now, *three* unrelated qualities (could kick a football / shot their wife / is dead), but that'd be different. But the list has existed for well over a decade and this hasn't been done yet, so that doesn't seem likely, plus the list would have to monitored regularly to make sure that people don't put in live people.

If someone wants to write an article demonstrating that sportspeople are more likely than the general populace to commit crimes or certain types of crimes or something (assuming that they are, otherwise why would we even have this list) and include sufficient refs to articles that show this, OK. But that'd be an entirely different article. Herostratus (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Herostratus (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't think this is nice" is not a reason for deletion. The article is extensively referenced. As for whether the subject is an actual intersection, see the previous discussions. Or to summarize, there are many discussions in media about athletes and criminal behavior, there are none about "Bassoon players who drive Fords" as you say. CitiCat^♫ 19:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not nice", if true, is a good reason for not doing any action. Most people don't go around being unkind to people on purpose for insufficient cause. Some do. We can't help that, but we also don't have to support and enable it. Remember, the Wikipedia is very widely read. Its power can be used to inform and enlighten, but also to bully and harm individual persons who have to limited means to fight back against such a huge organization. I want to err on the side of not doing that, and I hope that you do too.

Now, you can make an argument that this list is nice – not harmful to anyone. That's a different argument, and if you can make it, please proceed. And there are many discussions in media about many things that we don't have articles on.Herostratus (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, your argument is "I want to delete this because I don't like it". What wikipedia policy are you saying this violates? CitiCat^♫ 17:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pro athletes are not "private people"; they are public figures. And public figures who commit crimes draw media attention, e.g. Baseball Players Who Did Time in Prison. However, I'm going to remove misdemeanors (i.e. drunk driving alone). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well reported. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any valid rationale for deletion from the nom. Everything in the article is sourced. For the individuals I checked, their biographies also contain the information too. Anything unsourced can be removed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lugnuts: My rationale below cites a policy and a guideline. Do you consider that rationale to be valid? SpinningSpark 09:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unrelated cross-categorization that fails WP:NOTDIR criterion #6. It also fails WP:BLPCAT: Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. (my emphasis) If this were limited to sports-related crimes it might comply, but as it stands, it is verging on the kind of celebrity fancruft that belongs in the tabloids, not here. And before anyone points out this is not a category, BLPCAT also says These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements... SpinningSpark 09:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you are referring to clearly states it is regarding reputation - that is, lists of this type must be based on sourced, factual information. In fact it specifically states that "crime" categories must only include people convicted, which is exactly what this list is. CitiCat^♫ 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't cherry pick, that is not the part of the policy I highlighted that it fails. For the most part, these crimes are not "relevant to the person's notability". They are mostly not related to sport. SpinningSpark 23:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the scope of the article is serious crimes, I think being a public person committing a serious crime is in general a significant part of their notability. CitiCat^♫ 01:12, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You think wrong. BLP, NPOV, and RS are three key rules here. "I think being a public person, we don't need sources to write about her" or "I think being a public person, we don't need to take neutral stance on her" relate to RS and NPOV pretty much how your statement, which to my eyes devolves to "I think being a public person, we can overemphasize her criminality if we want to" relates to BLP. BLP, like those other two, is (like it or not) an absolute iron core attribute of the Wikipedia, so... Herostratus (talk) 23:05, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely never said that, I feel like you are just making a straw man argument now. You said you don't feel the crimes they are convicted for are part of their notability, I said I disagree. I think these are both positions that can be argued. So you replied that I am saying we can "overemphasize their criminality", and even worse - "being a public person, we don't need sources to write about her", which is absolutely contrary to everything I have said, and also the strong emphasis in this article on following rules regarding sourcing. CitiCat^♫ 16:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom. I'd also like to add that there are a lot of intersections that we stay away from because they are either toxic original thought or egregiously POV: "List of socialists who have been convicted of assault". "List of feminists who have made rape charges that were dismissed". "List of Republicans who have been convicted of fraud". Most people aren't against athletes in that way, but some are -- they feel that the attention and riches showered on them is toxic to society, and would like to point out that they are often thugs rather than paragons. Probably this list wasn't made by someone of that mind, but the effect is the same as if it had been. Herostratus (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're still making up intersections that aren't commonly used. Like I've said, this *is* a commonly used intersection in the media and scientific study. Search google for "connection between athletes and violence" (without quotes) and this is just from the first two pages [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] CitiCat^♫ 17:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright! Now we are getting somewhere. Those links are interesting and enlightening. Judging by them, there are indeed people who don't like athletes, and apparently athletes are more likely to be criminals, or something. Or might be: "Evidence is inconclusive regarding whether athletes are more likely to commit violent acts against women" and so forth -- that is from Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law (which Harvard publishes). So true or not, it's something that notable people have claimed, researched, and discussed (and refuted, or tried to).

So this changes the thrust of this discussion in a couple ways.

First, if we want to publish material along the lines of "Some people think that athletes are more likely than the general population to commit crimes, or certain types of crimes, and there is data supporting this", the way to do that is NOT NOT NOT to present a list of anecdotes. That's not how we do it; we wait for other people do that and use their synthesis as our refs. (That is, that's what we're supposed to do -- a number of our lists really are original research, but it's not so bad cause they aren't pushing a larger point and/or dragging anyone thru the mud, so enh.)

Second of all, the way to do it is to provide refuting data if there is any. You have to give context here. I believe there is data refuting the athletes-as-thugs trope in the refs you provided, and surely elsewhere. If we're going to document an alleged phenomena, we definitely want both sides.

So within that context it might be possible for this list to exist, either as part of, or as a separate article supporting, an article like Criminality among athletes or something. You could even start with this article, but you'd need, at the least, to add to it and change its name. (Even then, the "list" is providing by implication one side: "Wow, look at all these athlete thugs!", so I'm unsure if it'd be appropriate; it's debatable.)

(An example is, say, Magical negro and List of Magical Negro occurrences in fiction. The list alone is not very useful and enlightening -- "encyclopedic" -- by itself. Together, the two articles support each other.)

So the TL;DR I get from this new info is:

1) "Criminal athletes" actually is a thing.

2) That being so, the data in this list is legit something that, arguably, could be a useful data point (in a different article).

3) On the other hand, that being so, the list is probably not defaming people at random. It's doing so on purpose, out of vindictiveness and/or to prove a point. That's... not better? Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation is "the communication of a false statement" (bolding mine). These aren't imaginary crimes. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stated above that this list is a BLP violation. However for many of these individuals I can go to their own articles and read exactly the same details of their crimes such that the info is already on Wikipedia. All this does is listyfy those individuals and their crimes.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"What this does is listify those individuals and their crimes" is exactly the problem. Herostratus (talk) 19:55, 1 October 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 Already deleted. Tone 08:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bolaji Olagunju[edit]

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

Failing GNG. The coverage is primarily about one event, the founding of a "tech hub". The sources very much give the impression of leaning on the same press pack - even using identical phrases and article structures. The sources are business-as-usual coverage of a company where the subject of the article is mentioned in passing (and also inevitably given his corporate office). Lacking substantial coverage about the individual. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator moved the article to draftspace shortly after AFD began admitting that the subject isn't notable. I think the next step is either move is reverted and AFD continues or mainspace article is deleted and AFD is closed. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as nominator I can only close the AFD as a keep which would be wrong. I have reverted the draftification for the AFD to run its course. The author now implies that the subject is not notable; for ease of the process, a G7 request may be viable which an admin may consider. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 18:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Brockman and HandsomeBoy, sequel to this nomination, I considered the article to be coming too soon and lacking adequate stand for notability. The subject is quite popular but lacks any sufficient reference beyond this event. That was why I kept it as short as I could find reference to. I have done a G7 deletion request. Community over POV. Danidamiobi (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Syndicate[edit]

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

Procedural nomination from declined PROD. SummerPhDv2.0 (t c) proposed deletion of this article with the reason "Unsourced, no indication of notability." on 22 Sept. I declined the PROD because the article was previously created and had a contested PROD, then was deleted via CSD A7 in 2007. –Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. –Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. –Darkwind (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage provided or found. No indication of presumed notability. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:22, 29 September 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. Discussion about the content should take place outside AfD. Tone 08:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester child sex abuse ring[edit]

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

This does seem to be a "Manchester child sex abuse ring", it seems more of a crime that so happened to occur in Manchester.

This crime does not have connotations associated with it such as others like Rotherham or Rochdale, there is no motive against the victims due to their race or any controversy.

This is no scandal, this is not notable for an encyclopedia given the lack of sources, the fact some sources are not in English and even the Daily Mail has not reported on it. It does not belong.

If it does belong then it runs the precedent of every crime being reported on with an encyclopaedia article when it affects 3 or more people, every individual “mass shooting” or the like. Reallythoughbro (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Reallythoughbro (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article's author: The editor who created this deletion request appears to misunderstand Wikipedia policy (their edit history also shows they are very inexperienced) and appears to be trying to deceive the community about the extent of the crime's news coverage.

The Manchester ring actually was reported in the Daily Mail, despite Reallythoughbro's claim otherwise.
The General notability guideline confirms that: "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language."

Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain coverage does not warrant an encyclopaedia piece, even looking at the mail article coverage compared to other “scandals” this does not compare, all coverage declares them a gang who more so we’re convicted for a rape in a park, than the likes of systematic and widespread abuse of others. Again, I maintain this is a crime that has happened to occur in Manchester, not a “Manchester abuse ring” and therefore not worthy of encyclopaedia inclusion unlike the others.Reallythoughbro (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article's author: Reallythoughbro is misrepresenting the nature of the crimes. The victims were all under-age, a dedicated police operation was launched to investigate the grooming gang, the police said it was a "sophisticated grooming operation by males operating in that area" and that "we do believe there are other victims". Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Police also said: "the group had preyed on young and vulnerable victims and subjected them to systematic abuse over a prolonged period." Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the police make this statement, they make it with everything they do, regardless of crime whether it’s drugs and the like, simply saying this about this case does not compare to the years and decades of abuse seen in other cases, it does not compare to those that are actually worthy of an article.Reallythoughbro (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, speaking of users history, it appears the creator has had a history of obsessing over this topic, has had numerous occasions of almost being topic banned, including having to change their name from “tots and little ones matter” they have a history of trying to “right great wrongs” and this should be taken into account for motivation to make this article when it isn’t remotely worthy of it compared to the others in the portal. Again, this is not a scandal or is coverage worthy of this.Reallythoughbro (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article's author: Reallythoughbro is misrepresenting how the article's notability compares to some others on the same topic. The Aylesbury child sex abuse ring has four references and is about two victims. The Banbury child sex abuse ring and Peterborough sex abuse case articles each have six sources. Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understandably the creator has chosen to ignore their history of the topic and almost being topic banned as well as changing their name from “tots and little ones matter”- which shows you the motivation why they made their account in the first place. They have spent a long time dedicating themselves to making articles about literally everything and anything child sexual abuse related in their efforts to “right great wrongs”. Note they misrepresented what I said regarding coverage, the other articles he mentioned have not only been covered considerably in the news just not with references in the article, but it was also questioned to be racially charged. This “ring” was not racially charged, had no controversy or scandal, and has not been covered extensively in the news. Please do not fall for their misrepresentation. Their motivations are clear. Reallythoughbro (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article's author: Whether or not a gang was "racially charged" (whatever that means) is irrelevant to the General notability guideline. (The the perpetrators were all Romanian, so even if having a different ethnicity were relevant, it would not make this article any different to the others.) Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sidestepping is quite interesting I must admit by the creator here. But still, the “racially charged” applies to those that actually have been scandals and are worthy of an article, including Rochdale, Telford, Rotherham, they are incredibly racially charged and usually have an influence of political correctness not seen in this case here. This case is purely a crime that has been committed in Manchester, with little coverage, no scandal, no right wing nonsense, and is not worthy of an article. I understand the creator seems themselves the protector of “tots and little ones” but if we are to create an article about every single one of these crimes there would be hundreds according to the NSPCC. It is not worthy of an article, lacks coverage and does not meet guidelines. Reallythoughbro (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the article's author: Reallythoughbro, your repetition is getting silly. Please save us all some time and familiarise yourself with the General notability guideline. Also, no, I was not "making articles about literally everything and anything child sexual abuse related". All my articles bar one were about an abuse ring and still have a Wikipedia article because they are notable. Maternalistic Lioness (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your inability to admit your motives is more telling I am afraid. I understand you see yourself as the guardian of some sorts and feel you must bring all these things to Wikipedia, but on this occasion this is very much a general article, with no great coverage, four sources not in English, no scandal like every single other ring, and very much an odd one out that does not belong. Reallythoughbro (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Obviously meets GNG just from the sources in the article and has had wide-ranging, international coverage as expected for a significant event. Zerach (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not the right place to wage a policy dispute. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Flores[edit]

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

Not notable. The only sources I find for KF are her social media. The only sources for the competition she won are promotional or business listings, the best being "The World Championships of Performing Arts is a legitimate event." ^[1] This is the 3rd creation of this bio. Salt it. Cabayi (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Is the World Championships of Performing Arts legit or is it a scam? - Quora". www.quora.com.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 05:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. When I was cleaning up the article, I tried finding additional sources and failed to find any significant coverage at all of her beyond the single URL in the article. The official website for the competition doesn't list past winners so I couldn't even get confirmation of the claim from there. Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one-sentence article bases the subject's notability on winning a competition that Wikipedia no longer has an article about, because the competition was itself deemed non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Championships of Performing Arts. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable individual, can't find any significant coverage. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the reasons given by the nominator. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Guy (help!) 20:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable given that there's only one given achievement from a competition which too is not notable and was recently deleted. Allenjambalaya (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not notable. Aside from that one reference there doesn't seem to be anything else on her. Mgasparin (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, All above, article is not backed by reliable sources and is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stonebank[edit]

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

Never charted. Only significant coverage currently on the article is an interview related to the software this artist uses. Never released for a major record label; Monstercat is considered an independent label in this subject area. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 10 references, most of which from the same few websites. Googling site:billboard.com "Stonebank" does seem to prove he did chart, but going into the actual pages don't show anything. Until it can be proven that he did, the article fails WP:MUSICBIO. 06:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Fleming[edit]

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

No evidence of actual notability--routine minor news events only DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, there are a number of news articles used as sources, but there are also a number of books. The number, quality, and variety of sources are enough to satisfy GNG. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to add more sources. I have a few more that I hope to be able to access in the next few days. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've just been through every one of those sources put up since the AfD was filed, and in only one can I find as much as a single sentence mentioning the subject. Would any Keep proponent identify the precise sources which provide coverage of the subject in the "significant detail" necessary to meet the GNG, and preferably by page number? Casual mentions, be they ever so many and in hardbound books, do not suffice, nor do half a dozen reiterations of his obituary from the same newspaper. 0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 19:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: I have added some new content, supported by sources from the front pages of the New York Times and Boston Globe, among others. I trust this is sufficient. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking through the sources I could access (so everything except the NYT article), there weren't any that actually support the notability of John H Fleming. All of the Boston Globe reporting was transcripts from a trial involving Mr Fleming, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion about him. There is plenty about the girl suing him, but he is neither the primary focus of the stories nor sufficiently covered to learn anything more than that he interacted with a sick girl. Rockphed (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Fleming "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" per GNG. The articles about the lawsuit cover him in far greater detail than just a trivial mention. There was a great deal of discussion about him, not just that he visited a sick girl. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the criterion is not "more than a trivial mention" , nor "themain topic", but "substantial". People will have to use their judgement about that. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 6 October 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 Hypertensive emergency. Per WP:ATD and Redirects Are Cheap. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertension-mediated organ damage[edit]

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

unnecessary pseudo-disamb. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a contributor to this page (it looked like this before I touched it) who wasn't notified about this nomination, but found out about it via my watchlist. No objection to deletion or most other possible actions. Geolodus (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really can't see this being a useful disambiguation page. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DAB. This is not a proper disambiguation page and the hypertension article, probably the first port of call for this subject, already has those links. I wouldn't object if someone wants to turn this page into something else (like an index of hypertension-related topics for instance), but as it stands it doesn't fit. SpinningSpark 23:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created the original HMOD page, which I agree really shouldn't be a disambiguation page. Hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD) is a concept introduced by the European guidelines on hypertension, and as such, I think Wikipedia should mention it, even if only as a redirect. HMOD, hypertensive crisis and hypertensive emergency essentially refer to the same subject and should ideally be covered by the same single article. --Shinryuu (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, HMOD should redirect to hypertensive emergency. The h. crisis article says it becomes an h. emergency when organ damage is detected. If that is right, then the latter is the right article to redirect to. They both give the same defining blood pressure figures. Whether these two articles should be merged is a discussion for another place. Or you can just go ahead and do it if you want to. SpinningSpark 21:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Prime (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am loath to agree to delete when the first 2 sources are books that I don't have access to. Does anyone have any idea what the treatment of "Vector Prime" in those 2 books is? Rockphed (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely unlikely it's anything of importance. It looks more like someone stuck them there to pretend they mean anything seeing as they sourced such a minor piece of information with both. I think it's fairly common throughout these articles because they've been targets for deletion for so long. TTN (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there might be good sources out there. Bigfoot might also exist and ETs might have visited earth in the recent past. I find the three cases to be about equally likely. Rockphed (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. ミラ P 19:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots per WP:CHEAP. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Not notable don its own, redirect to List of Autobots. Alex-h (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Marvel Studios has already announced a forthcoming Eternals movie, and Eternity will inevitably be a character central to that movie, which will lead to continuously increased coverage over the next several years. bd2412 T 01:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable fictional character, if it is apart of forthcoming Eternals movie. This will increase its coverage.--PATH SLOPU 08:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is a pointless argument. Being in the MCU does not inherently make a character notable. It's more typical that being notable leads to inclusion in the MCU, but there are still plenty of minor characters that don't have articles. TTN (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or is he already in the MCU...? =) -2pou (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments (and actually, most characters in the MCU films have been well-established, but several were "who the hell is that?" before the film) or if that argument fails, then a merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics as this can be split back out when the sources are found. BOZ (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that more sources have been added to the article since the AFD started. BOZ (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that absolutely none of them are relevant to the issues of notability or real world information. The only sentence added that even attempts to do so is very poorly inserted into the article. TTN (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A genuine notable character. Can be improved more Spittingchamp (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @CarciaNullius: thanks for adding a plethora or secondary sources to support the article. I've abstained from most of these cosmic character nominations, but this one is definitely notable. Notability is even exemplified by noting his absence in some cases. -2pou (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep prominent comic-book character. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that the subject is notable. Barca (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to relevant list of superheroes. Sources in the article, why numerous, are 100% WP:PRIMARY/in passing. The argument that 'there will be sources because there will be a movie' is irrelevant per WP:CRYSTALBALL; when those sources appear, this can be restored and improved. Nobody found any source discussing this characrters impact or such. Fails WP:NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics - The plethora of sources on this article are pretty useless as actually establishing any sort of real-world notability. They are either 1)primary sources 2)non-reliable sources 3)plot summaries only 4)extremely brief mentions with no extensive coverage, or multiple combinations of several of those. The argument that keeps coming up here that there will be bound to me more coverage because of the upcoming The Eternals film is quite confusing to me, as I am finding no connection between the two besides similar names. I don't know of any particular close connection this character has to the group - the Eternals are not mentioned at all in this article outside of stating that Thanos is one, Eternity is not mentioned at all in the Eternals (comics) article, and I am finding nothing showing any sort of announcement that he will have any presence in the upcoming film. Where exactly is this argument coming from? Rorshacma (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:39, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cosmic entities in Marvel Comics. I like the character, but he's only notable within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After looking over the new refs, I have to agree that they don't help much. However, there is still a lot out there, it's just harder to find since "Eternity" is such a general term. I have compiled a bunch of refs, and I have enough to add a Reception/Legacy/Impact section. Stand by while I work on it. -2pou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (still a keep): As I have seen more of these AfDs and other contributors, I realize I took the wrong approach with my last comment. I still plan to add detail to the section, but for now, it's more important to show that the sources WP:NEXIST regardless of their inclusion in the article, and I'll polish it over time. (Thanks, @Girth Summit and Pontificalibus: for opening my eyes to this fact in this AfD and multiple It AfDs, respectively.)
1. Eternity's introduction, namely the surreal imagery and concept of personifying abstract concepts is responsible for including "The Eternity Saga" in multiple lists of Top Doctor Strange stories to read: [16], [17]; and in the top comic storylines to read [18]. (Yes, they're Top X lists, but they won't stand alone.)
2. Jeffery, Scott (2016). "The Cosmic Body". The Posthuman Body in Superhero Comics. Palgrave Studies in Comics and Graphic Novels. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-54950-1_5. ISBN 978-1-137-57822-8. This points out the unique concept of the character Eternity at the time. I requested my library get this after finding it on Scholar. Eternity is one of Ditko's works that impacted Starlin and Englehart.
3. Another book discusses him as a truly great concept of the time [19] (no, this ref is not WP:ALLPLOT)
4. Bell, B. (2008). Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko. Fantagraphics Books. - This book also discusses the unique creation of Eternity, and Jim Starlin comments on how there was no character similar to him at the time, including Kirby's creations, and how it inspired some of his cosmic work on things like Captain Marvel and Warlock.
4. Eternity is central in Marvel's 80th anniversary celebration and Marvel Comics #1000, where the Eternity Mask is part of his being and it has influenced Marvel Universe events for a long time. [20] [21]
That's about it for now, but I have several book requests at the library, and it's more than enough to satisfy the GNG. I'm putting them in messily just so they're there, and even WP:NEXIST won't apply, but section is under construction. -2pou (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! BOZ (talk) 04:42, 5 October 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. This is not the strongest consensus but invoking WP:NOTAVOTE, I believe the weight of WP:PAG based argument comes down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

War (Swedish band)[edit]

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

Band that fails WP:BAND. Sourced to Myspace mostly, and a Google search only brings up their social media page. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passed WP:BAND, points 5 and 6. Have released several albums via Necropolis Records and has at least two members (Peter Tägtgren and David Parland) who have played in other notable bands. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Note that this band was named both "War" and "Total War" at various points and that makes a search difficult, and the existence of multiple other bands also called War makes everything even more confusing. This WP article even mixes up the names in the header, infobox, and text. The band gained little reliable media notice outside of their insular local scene. The previous voter made a case that they can barely satisfy a couple of band notability guidelines but I think that is relatively weak. They also got a smattering of notice for controversial lyrics, mentioned briefly in the book that is currently at footnote #3. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed WP:BAND, points 5 and 6 indeed.BabbaQ (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you fulfill the criteria of WP:BAND does not mean you pass. Without actual refs, it still fails WP:BAND. No one has come forth with reliable references, so this is just WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they are mentioned in the book "Black Metal: Evolution of the Cult" but that is only one mention, WP:BAND requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - there are no charted albums or singles, no awards, etc., so does not meet notability guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 03:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and therefore WP:GNG. The sources cited are not reliable per wikipedia's standards for verifiability and therefore, the subject does not meet the criteria at WP:BAND. Sources independent of the subject are needed to verify that content in order for the article to be kept.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from previous voter - If my "weak keep" vote above is causing a lack of consensus, I would not be opposed to deletion just to help wrap this up without more re-listings. The "delete" votes have raised valid issues of their own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 29 September 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. Default keep since the consensus is not a delete. Tone 13:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not clear that it is independently notable. Perhaps better merged into Coalition Provisional Authority Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested because the article does include references, although it does not present them properly. Mccapra (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is not the correct forum to discuss a merger. The nominator should withdraw the AFD amd discuss a merger on the article's talk page.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It seems like most sources are not about the topic and that there is only one dedicated source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Laboratories[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:CORP. A search of sources reveal no significant coverage, though some non-significant coverage that references them through their products.

Current references point solely to primary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references meet WP:ORGCRIT in my online search. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would the non-significant coverage justify a merge/redirect to Altana? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company was the subject of an article in The New York Times in 1966 for marketing a dangerous arthritis drug, see here. I also found on my University's library system the articles: "Savage Laboratories Introduces Pandel Cream" by the PR Newswire, March 21, 1997, p.321; "Savage Laboratories Announces a Copromotion Deal with Bioglan Pharma", PR Newswire, Oct 3, 1997, p.1003NYF104; "Savage discontinues Nitrol product line", Pharma Marketletter, April 7, 2003. Their drug Ethiodol is cited quite a lot in published research here. My university library has a ton of other published articles by the company in mulitiple pharmaceutical/medical journals.4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete. Non-notable. There are exactly zero refs in the article, a Google News search turned up zero sources to support Notability, and even after scanning all ~120 hits in a generic Google search I found zero refs to support Notability. Press releases and other publications by the company itself carry exactly zero weight for Notability, so PR Newswire and most of the other sources cited by 4meter4 don't help. The only potentially promising item is the 1966 New York Times article, which I wasn't able to check. But even if it does provide substantial coverage of Savage Laboratories we would still need multiple solid sources to satisfy Notability. The fact that Savage Laboratories doesn't even warrant a sentence in the parent company article, and there's no content worth merging from the Savage article, just emphasizes how thoroughly non-notable Savage is.
A redirect to parent company Altana is possible but very marginal. The sole mention at the target article is the bare name "Savage Laboratories" almost hidden among other names in the infobox Divisions field. Alsee (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages and shouldn't have completely unsourced articles about companies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. Press releases fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Discounting the "Keep per" nonexistent previous keep votes. This has been open long enough. If somebody wants to wait a few weeks and give it another go, I have no objections. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olumide Bakare[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. This is a weird one. Some of the sources actually appear to contain false/inaccurate information, such as he "starred" in Last Flight to Abuja. Not only didn't he star, can't find any indication he even appeared in the film. He was a working actor, but that's it. Was deprodded without rationale (except claiming he's notable), and no improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite comvinced that he fails notability in general after all that Nigerian newspaper calls him a Veteran Nollywood actor, which at least hints at notability on a national level in Nigeria, which imho would be good enough. Note we are not an encyclopedia for anglosaxon audiences and what is notable for them, but an international encyclopedia in English, hence being sufficiently famous/known as an actor in Nigeria would be good enough for notability. However that newspaper article is only hinting at that without providing much info. It would require additional Nigerian sources to establish with certainty what that newspaper headline seems to suggest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keep votes HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do realized there are no keep !votes?Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed the PROD as the refs regarded him as a veteran actor as stated in my edit summary and by Kmhkmh. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately wikipedia generally requires more than just "veteran actor" status to write articles. We prefer multiple, independent, reliable, in-depth sources about the article subject, but are willing to accept sources that only show that such sources exist. Rockphed (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with Kmhkmh that it looks like he should be notable based on how the Nigerian sources on the web treat mentions of him, but my search-fu is insufficient to find ~~them~~the sources that should exist. I did find an obituary that looks at least slightly interesting, but isn't in-depth enough to count for notability.^[1] Rockphed (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, the sources simply aren't there to support WP:NACTOR - all the sources seem to be obituaries WP:NOTMEMORIAL - Epinoia (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lentz, Harris, M. Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2017. Retrieved 18 September 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

weak Keep. The source that Rockphed thankfully has dug up could imho be enough to prove notability. McFarland is usually a good source and if he appears in an international obituary collection published by them that clearly seems to suggests notability. It is true that obituary doesn't offer much in-depth biographical information and as such might not be good enough to match WP:BASIC, but it should be enough tp pass WP:NACTOR ("significant roles in multiple independent films or tv series"). So we would have just stub article for now but on a notable subject with reliable information.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per this and the other sources linked in this discussion. The subject appears to have been active in the early 2000s, particularly between 2000 and 2009. I'm not sure how many primary roles he had but according to Premium Times newspaper, he was known for his role in Koko Close and Doctor Bello.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Versace1608 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources have very little to say about the actor or his career. So little in fact, I don't they can be considered significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per sources brought forward in discussion. RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-commerce[edit]

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 07:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see the kind of dictionaries you are using at home. They must be quite voluminous. Congratulations, btw. on challenging the justification of even the definition of a term that has over 1.5 billion hits on Google. On the not-so-light side: How come you can only think of deleting a valid start? I, personally would find myself prompted to add stuff. Not erase. But, I guess, that's (unfortunately, even on WP) up to everybody's personal taste. -- Kku (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICTIONARYRathfelder (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your verbose and instructive commentary. I think I understood the gist what you meant the first time. ;) -- Kku (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning toward delete. 1.5 billion hits on google just means that there are lots of places in English where a word ending with t is concatenated with commerce. The best source I have found is pages 190 - 203 of "Marcus, Aaron (2015). Design, User Experience, and Usability: Design Discourse: 4th International Conference, DUXU 2015, Held as Part of HCI International 2015, Los Angeles, CA, USA, August 2-7, 2015, Proceedings. Springer. ISBN 9783319208862. Retrieved 24 September 2019.". Non trivial it may be, but it seems to lack independence. I think we could maybe have an article on televised marketing that takes a redirect from t-commerce. Rockphed (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Business and marketing magazines, newspapers, and journals are writing on this topic, see here for example. My university library gave these sources in a search "Investigating User Adoption of T-commerce" by Eunjin Kim ; Seongpil Ko, 2011 First ACIS/JNU International Conference on Computers, Networks, Systems and Industrial Engineering, May 2011, pp.95-99; Trintech Partners With Industry Leaders to Form TV Linux Alliance to Exploit Opportunities for tCommerce, PR Newswire, Jun 13, 2001, p.1; "TRY KIZAN'S TCOMMERCE AND BAG THE WEB" by Whitehead, Ingrid, Computer Telephony, Nov, 1998, Vol.6(11), p.76; "VOD rolls on without Hollywood, for now; applications, tcommerce and owning patents", Paul Kagan, Cable World, May 20, 2002, Vol.14(20), p.42; "Extending the TAM for a t-commerce" by Yu, Jieun ; Ha, Imsook ; Choi, Munkee ; Rho, Jaejeung, Information & Management, 2005, Vol.42(7), pp.965-97; "The incidence of incentives for t-commerce acceptance: improving television as a distribution channel" by Arroyo-Cañada, Francisco-Javier ; Gil-Lafuente, Jaime, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 04 April 2016, Vol.31(3), pp.426-435; "Delivery Agent Joins Forces with Toyota to Introduce T-Commerce Campaign", Wireless News, March 8, 2015; "Direct Marketing and the Productive Capacity of Commercial Television: T-commerce, Advanced Advertising, and the Audience Product", Mcguigan, Lee, Television & New Media, February 2015, Vol.16(2), pp.196-214; "Grocery Shopping via T-Commerce in Korea: New Shopping Channel Adoption Behavior Based on Prior E-Commerce Experience", Lee, Dongmin ; Jeong, Haeyoung ; Cho, Jongpyo ; Jeong, Jaeseok ; Moon, Junghoon, March 2015, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,; "T-Commerce", Cablefax Daily, Jun 13, 2012, Vol.23; "All eyes zero on emerging T-commerce", Kate Fitzgerald, Advertising Age, Jan 15, 2001, Vol.72(3), p.s12, etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot of published research on this topic and newscoverage. The article should be tagged for expansion but not deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we've now seen enough nominations of alleged dictionary articles from this user to know that they are not thoroughly researched WP:BEFORE nominating. So I'll just agf on what 4meter4 has found + this one I found myself just to make sure. SpinningSpark 23:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now there are references I am happy to withdraw. Rathfelder (talk) 08:15, 30 September 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. Redirect seems to be only thinly supported (both in the discussion and in the sources mentioned), so leaving that out of the AfD close. RL0919 (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody 6th Ward[edit]

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

This 14-year old article fails to meet WP:GNG and has essentially no factual basis. The article's creator likely inserted it into the encyclopedia as a hoax. There is a 6th Ward in New Brunswick. It's an obsolete political subdivision which still gets mentioned sometimes by realtors. But no sources suggest that the ward was ever known as "bloody", nor are there any sources that support the claims about the ward's geographic boundaries, the ethnicity of its inhabitants, or the social groups who lived there and their sports rivalries. The Five Points area of New York City was once called the Bloody 6th Ward, which must be where the article creator got the idea. The one thing in the article that is supported by any kind of source is the mangled sentence about the Irish Riviera. [22] suggests that Bucchleuch Park, a neighborhood within the 6th Ward, is also known as the Irish Riviera. The reference was added in later, by an editor trying to add whatever citations they could to an unreferenced article. Assuming this qualifies as a hoax, it would set a new record for the longest-running hoax on Wikipedia. CataracticPlanets (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what indeed looks like a hoax. An article on the Bloody Ould Sixth Ward may be viable (and worth writing) and so a redirect from this title to the new article could be justified. Otherwise, to continue with this jolly jape, someone would have to be mischievous enough to "improve" the article by completely rewriting it to be about the New York slum (and have Bloody Ould Sixth Ward redirect in). Thincat (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created 14 years ago. One minute after it was created, it was tagged in this edit as "{{nonsense}}", which says it all. Alansohn (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So it does. Thincat (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After 14 years, there still aren't any sources to verify most of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Five Points, Manhattan, which the nominator cites as having borne the name, providing there is a reference to back up the claim.Djflem (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alansohn. Rockphed (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terence James O'Dwyer[edit]

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

The current sources don't show notability and I couldn't find anything to show that this person is notable. Working for multiple notable companies doesn't automatically make him notable despite the first AfD's conclusion. Fails WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a bloke doing his job(s). Nothing but reun of the mill mentions in sources about the businesses he is involved with.TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 1 October 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) 02:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Boller[edit]

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

GNG and NARTIST fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. There is nothing that distinguishes this artist from the multitude of other regional artists out there in the world. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find enough sources to verify GNG or NARTIST. Furthermore, the page has COI as it was started by Chuck DeVore, who happens to be a local politician, as does the subject, who has also edited the page [23]. --Theredproject (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, cannot see any reasonable basis for this passing either WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Edwardx (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of independent sources to prove notability Dexxtrall (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the "sources" are not independent of the subject. The few remaining do not establish notability, whether one looks at our general policy or at the special notability guideline for artists. David in DC (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find anything that makes her notable among other artists Alex-h (talk) 12:42, 4 October 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. Most commenters believe there are adequate sources to pass WP:GNG, and I see no reason to disagree, the most recent comment notwithstanding. RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Depledge[edit]

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

The business enterprise is trivial, and the awards are promotional , and do not show notability . An MBE is the lowest level, there is no limit to the number awarded, and is not considered at WP as a significant honour. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ellson, Andrew (2018-10-29). "Budget 2018: Hassle pioneer wants tax on digital giants". The Times. Archived from the original on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
2. Rodionova, Zlata (2019-06-02). "A View From the Top with Resi home-improvement site co-founder Alex Depledge: The entrepreneur tells Zlata Rodionova how her burnout prompted her to launch two successful startups and what worries her about Brexit". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
3. Ley, Rebecca (2019-02-04). "She had a breakdown — then made £27 million: A high-flying management consultant had to hit rock bottom before she could change her life". The Times. Archived from the original on 2019-09-30. Retrieved 2019-09-30.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Alex Depledge to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red asking editors whether they can find more sources about Alex Depledge. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfD on the company that acquired the company that Alex Depledge co-founded: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helpling. Cunard (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -She meets WP:GNG. (I just added a ref from the Guardian, but IMO she already met (or exceeded) notability.) JSFarman (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced to establish wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' People tellingtheir own life stories from their own POV do not show notability ; it's publicity, even if a major newspaper chooses to publish it. (Yes, I am saying that we have tto look at the content , not the name of the publication). The Independent story in particular is a PR job in the most classic of senses. If it shows notability , it's the notability of her PR firm in getting it placed. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are too trivial to be significant. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 6 October 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) 01:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Léopold Bellanger[edit]

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

This was the closest I could find to reliable sourcing. Appears to be non-notable. Sam Walton (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sam Walton (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is completely unsourced, the Nouvelle République source the nominator found above is a start but does not get him to the finish line all by itself if it's the only source that can be found — and the article has been deleted as self-promotional advertorialism without a strong notability claim or strong sourcing even on FR, where you'd expect people to be much more on the ball about notable French actors. Bearcat (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is entirely inadequate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 29 September 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.

[1] Gans, Andrew (2018). "Tony Winner Karen Ziemba and More Set for National Tour of White Christmas". Playbill. Retrieved 12 September 2019.

[2] Ellis, Jeffrey. "BWW Review: IRVING BERLIN'S WHITE CHRISTMAS Brings Musical Theater Joy to the Holiday Season". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 12 September 2019.

[3] Robb, Stephanie. "BWW Review: Dreaming of a White Christmas in Atlanta? Look No Further than Irving Berlin's WHITE CHRISTMAS at The Fox Theatre". BroadwayWorld.com. Retrieved 12 September 2019.

[4] "Review: 'Sound of Music' seems suddenly relevant in San Jose". The Mercury News. 10 November 2016. Retrieved 12 September 2019.

[5] "Newsday Review: Let Engeman's 'Gypsy' entertain you, yes sir". John W. Engeman Theater. 21 September 2017.

[6] "Local Student, Kyla Carter, to Star in NUMBER THE STARS in NYC". 28 October 2014. Retrieved 12 September 2019.

[7] Desk, BWW News. "NUMBER THE STARS to Run 11/14-17 at Davenport Theatre". BroadwayWorld.com.

[8] FOX. ""White Christmas" in Orlando". WOFL. Retrieved 2019-09-11.

[9] "Is the World Championships of Performing Arts legit or is it a scam? - Quora". www.quora.com.

[10] Lentz, Harris, M. Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2017. Retrieved 18 September 2019.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]

[1]