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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Tiregar[edit]

Reza Tiregar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod that was removed-this was a borderline speedy for me. I can't do a BLP prod as he does have refs even if unreliable. Anyway non notable actor who falls under way too soon if ever. Wgolf (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay : More than 10 videos Has played Is famousY Seraltic (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of solid coverage. I've checked half of the film articles (including two that didn't appear to have articles), and none of them mentioned Tiregar. I can see "he played a major part in more than ten feature films" being a solid argument for notability, but when his parts are so minor that he's not even mentioned by those who create such pages, we should outright ignore them when considering notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-he was only listed as 3 earlier. Not even sure if most of those are films. Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot are films, and they have articles; they just aren't linked. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just added links. I guess I checked all four articles and two of the non-articles. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The first 5 videos Solid reasoning.Based on Wikipedia:Notability (people) It is noteworthy  Resolved 79.127.72.185 (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This article is based on fake sources. Like this. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fake sources? He definitely exists, as he appears in the IMDB link for Hello Mumbai as one of the cast. (Also see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm4308471) The only obviously wrong information is his height, which has to be a good deal greater than 1.65 cm (1 in). So the problem with this article is that it has no reliable sources, not that everything's an outright fake. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is fake as even iMDB knows this person continues to add the name themselves to their website and that he hasn't appeared in a single one of the claimed films. Praxidicae (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Uh someone should probably look into the article creator Seraltic as a sock of Zahra 1369. 199.247.45.10 (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment فرهنگ2016 : Sorry, your comments are not valid The page has a valid source In the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) This person has nothing to do with the rest of the people, Your reason is totally unacceptable.  Resolved Seraltic (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a lack of reliable independent references (nearly all are IMDb), only seems to have bit parts , no notability established. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment some of these films are not even on the IMDB making this even more interesting and less notable. Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:User:Wgolf: You will see movie ratings on the site (Damascus Time)--(Salaam Mumbai)--(No Date, No Signature)All these videos Are noteworthy. Good job! Seraltic (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G5 of an about-to-be-globally-locked vanity spammer.Praxidicae (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:User:Praxidicae:Your personal hostility has nothing to do with the rest.Look at the edits of this page -- Mohammad Tiregar -- Intentional vandalism on your behalf, You took the money to make them a spammer. Seraltic (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's news to me, pal, I wish I got paid to deal with irrelevant vanity spammers. Also I definitely don't edit that garbage site you just linked to. Praxidicae (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed all the papers For these reasons were removed Machine translation was And the article has no problems.I hope your cooperation will increase on Wikipedia.To help Wikipedia, add articles.Do not try to With deception Delete it articles Seraltic (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraltic These allegations are wholly inappropriate, you must strike them and apologise to Praxidicae at once. Failure to do so will result in your account(s) being blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Nick (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monument Policy Group[edit]

Monument Policy Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page was clearly deleted in 2008. It still has no sourcing that establishes notability. The article, as well as articles on the group's members were alomst certainly created by a PR firm. GPL93 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOPROMO. The organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG either despite listing some impressive sounding clients/connections. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote organizations for private financial gain. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 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. This is quite a tricky close, yes initially a technical NFOOTY pass, but questionable GNG at best.

However, it seems that during the discussion consensus elsewhere regarding the level of professionalism in the main league in which the player played decided that it was not fully professional.

There's an argument that this should be closed as delete as it now seems like both an NFOOTY and GNG failure. However, given the change of consensus midway through this AfD, I wonder whether some editors' comments may have been presented differently had the original rationale been fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. It seems preseumptive of a closing admin to assume they would have not.

In this instance it seems better, given that this discussion, and others, will probably shape a wider consensus, for this discussion to be closed as no consensus, but without this precluding a renomination with an updated rationale. This seems especially relevent given the majority of the keep votes were meets NFOOTY-based rather than attempting to present sources showing GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Varga[edit]

Zach Varga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Played 5 WP:NFOOTY games in 2009 (per SW) or 17 games in 2008–2009 (per [1]) in the third-tier semi-professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 20:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. nom consulted me. Clearly fails GNG. After college tried his luck in the minor leagues - failed. There's no significant coverage here. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, but in the absence of sources it is not sufficient. This guy is from the internet age in an English speaking country - sources should be trivial to find online were he notable - they simply do not exist, and those asserting NFOOTY should pony up with a few in-depth reliable independent sources.
• Keep – 17 appearances is clearly enough to pass WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As this individuals admits that he was semi-professional - LinkedIn (same guy - same graduation year from Duquesne University) - working as "project specialist" in Fairmont Supply Company from May 2007 to October 2009 (following which he moved to Bombardier Transportation as a "Manufacturing control analyst") - a period completely overlapping with his stint with the Riverhounds (2008-9) - it is quite clear this is a semi-pro player, that the Riverhounds employed semi-pros, and that the league (given multiple other examples) - is not a WP:FPL (I will further note - that the policy status of WP:FPL - is merely that of an essay - e.g. zilch) - and besides not meeting GNG (the more important criteria) - this is a NFOOTY fail as well. Icewhiz (talk) 07:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman: - how does a semi-pro player, playing in a league with several other semi-pro players, pass NFOOTBALL? (which itself merely creates a presumption of GNG). NFOOTY states - "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable." - as this player was employed by Fairmont Supply Company for the entirtity of his sting with the Riverhounds he was semi-pro, and any game he was involved with was not a game between two teams from "fully-professional leagues". Note that professional (receiving pay) does not mean fully-professional. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  He played in a fully-pro league. A handful of semi-pro players doesn't affect that; same with a non-professional youth player playing in the Premier League, for example. GiantSnowman 07:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  A source backing that up? WP:FPL, which is a mere essay, cites USL itself (not a RS) which says - "USL SECOND DIVISION One level below the USL First Division lives in the USL Second Division, the foundation of professional soccer in the United States .... The league is the birthplace of professional players that aspire to reach the highest-levels of the game, while providing affordable family entertainment within their city" - which actually ("foundation of professional soccer" and "birthplace of professional players") doesn't even support "professional" (though AFAICT USL D2 did pay a wage to everyone) - let alone "fully professional" (players don't work elsewhere). USL D2 was mainly a player development league - a large chunk of the rosters in the league were post-college players on rookie contracts who played for around a single season. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG Article is in need of development. Needs work - not afd WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 20:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (the keep !votes made on this basis need to be discounted as the league has been removed from the list at WP:FPL following a discussion). Number 57 08:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Wilberforce[edit]

Barbara Wilberforce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not inherited. Per a WP:BEFORE search, there is nothing covering the subject in depth as anything other than being married to someone notable. No accomplishments, awards, etc. The article states she married and had children; most everyone could say the same. Kbabej (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to William Wilberforce. Mccapra (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with William Wilberforce. This article is just about her personal life and relatives. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that a person is portrayed in a semi-historical way in a film does not make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability is not about the article, per WP:CONTN. Quite a bit has been written about her (enough to meet WP:GNG), but whether a separate article is warranted, or a section in the article about her husband is sufficient, I'm not sure. RebeccaGreen (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 06:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is extensive and detailed information about the subject in works such as The Parting of Friends and Wilberforce: Family and Friends. The subject therefore passes WP:BASIC and no particular accomplishment or achievement is required. The sources indicate that she was prone to anxiety and so inclined to worry and fuss. This caused some people to dislike her but so it goes. See WP:ZEAL. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as same reason per above. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There has been a considerable amount written about Barbara Wilberforce, as Andrew Davidson shows. To assess notability we do not enquire why authors have chosen to write what they did, we simply look for independent, reliable, substantial sources and in this case we do indeed find them. We do not make our own subjective assessments about whether someone is accomplished. WP:INHERITED deals with the situation where there has been very little written about a person who has a notable relative – that does not apply here. She outlived her husband and there are sources referring to her particularly strict evangelical views in later life. There is no claim (I hope) that she is notable solely because she was characterised in a film. Editorially it may make sense to merge with the article about William Wilberforce but I think this should only be after talk page discussion, not by AFD mandate. The latter article is a featured article and the editors and FAC assessors may have had good reason to want to limit the amount written about Barbara for stylistic or other reasons. This article about Barbara was created before the article on William was featured so the latter may well have been relying on the links it had then[2] to this subject. A discussion here should not risk disadvantaging a featured article. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I was, at first look, going to argue that the references about Barbara only talked about her in terms of her relationship to her husband. However, that first source of Andrew's actually does have a chapter extensively on Barbara herself. I think that significant coverage, along with the various minor mentions in the other sources, is enough to meet the GNG, if just barely. I do think there is an argument to be had that it might be more fitting for a merger, but as Thincat said, that would probably be best addressed in a separate discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As I said above, there is enough to meet WP:GNG, and I also had in mind the argument that Thincat made about the FA status of the article about her husband. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CanGèneTest[edit]

CanGèneTest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I recently PRODed this on the grounds that it had been unsourced since 2010 and I could not find any sources: it looked like the organisation was shortlived and not notable. PROD declined by another editor on the grounds that there are sources on Google scholar and Google books. This is correct - there are one or two passing refs but some are for other organisations called Apogee-Net and none of them look to me like they establish notability. Bringing this to AfD to seek consensus. Mccapra (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant coverage, not notable. Natureium (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:SIGCOV demonstrates that the company does not pass WP:GNG and if it is indeed defunct, then it never will. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of airlines of Antigua and Barbuda. Sandstein 19:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct airlines of Antigua and Barbuda Islands[edit]

List of defunct airlines of Antigua and Barbuda Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not sure how notable/encyclopedic this list is per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. I think it'd be better to merge this into a general article about the list of Antigua and Barbuda airlines, which currently redirects to a list of airlines of the Americas. (FWIW, most items are redlinked and this article is an orphan, although I doubt either of those things matter especially since this article is only a month or so old.) John M Wolfson (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: It turns out the creator of the article has created similar articles for many other countries, which might likewise benefit from a merge. Also, I had to change the title of this AfD because "List of defunct airlines of Antigua and Barbuda" already exists and redirects to a list of defunct airlines of the Americas. John M Wolfson (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the original editor has also created at least one other article without realising it already exists with a slightly different name presentation. MilborneOne (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as these lists are generally noteworthy (they exist for most countries) there could be some mileage in renaming it List of airlines of Antigua and Barbuda and add the (very small list) of current airlines as well. 08:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Close (WP:Speedy keep #1 actually). AFD is not the right forum for merge proposals. Please use the talk pages. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Per Nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a consensus for merging the articles, which I have done, and I withdraw this nomination and will not use this forum again for such proposals, thanks for the reminder. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:08, 22 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fowler[edit]

Ben Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, with only trivial mentions of the subject. WP:NCURLING criteria is passed, however the subject is only "presumed notable". Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He passes WP:NCURLING, so he does not have to pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 06:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 06:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:NCURLING as pointed out above. Smartyllama (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the additional references added are sufficient enough to have the article stay, though barely. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above arguments, if an individual meets a subcategory of the notability guideline (WP:NCURLING), they pass WP:GNG. While the article could be improved, the concerns are met. Rollidan (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article could be improved, but meets notability criterium # 3 as per WP:NCURLING. Spyder212 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Definitely meets WP:Notability. Article could do with a tidy up though. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has represented his country at the top level. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emediate[edit]

Emediate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional, SPA-created article on an entirely unremarkable advertising company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. MER-C 17:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no independent coverage. Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - there's no evidence of notability, and the article only barely makes a claim of notability. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find anything that supports notability. (Note: no Danish wiki article either.) Aoziwe (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet notability criteria. No secondary sources on the subject found. Spyder212 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. No references in a ProQuest search were found. Also worth noting that page was created by the account "Andersschaffner" which strongly appears to be WP:SPA whose purpose was to create this page. Cabrils (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could not see much about the company other than routine commercial and business announcements. Aoziwe (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master Yu Tian Jian[edit]

Master Yu Tian Jian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no real indicator of this person's notability. The links in the article appear to be self-managed sites. Unless notability established, delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find anything on Google News or Scholar. Too bad, looks like an interesting master.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its subject lacks independent WP:SIGCOV of his life or career as a monk. The sources all appear to be self-published from his order as well, so they do nothing to help demonstrate notability either. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale[edit]

Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only one of the provided references is independent of the subject— that reference calls this app "one of the most popular apps in the Android ecosystem", which seems odd since a Google News search turns up no actual discussion of the subject (though many trivial mentions). I suspect this means the subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. A loose necktie (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect: All sources from own wikia, does not prove notability. I wrote a new one though, so I guess we can redirect to mine. Please help out! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 07:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Huh, never realized how little coverage this game actually has. The game has over 50 million downloads from Google Play alone however, so please bear that in mind. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Pixel Gun 3D per CoolSkittle, didn't see that. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to Pixel Gun 3D, which is an article of much better quality created by Oshawott 12. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Is it...? It’s barely a paragraph, and has 6 sources that I’ve never heard of, that look like they are of dubious quality... Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could we move any of the information from the Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale page to the new Pixel Gun 3D page before it gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith John Mr. (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @A loose necktie, Oshawott 12, Mosaicberry, and CoolSkittle: There's some bad procedural-ness going on here. The article has originally been deleted under the name Pixel Gun 3D 3 times as G1, G11, and G11. (I'm not counting a R2 due to a draft move). Smith John created it under a new name, which is probably innocent enough. Moving a separate draft to Pixel Gun 3D while an AFD on the topic is already underway is probably premature and a bit out of procedure. AFD should be evaluating the topics suitably for an article. Votes for speedy redirect should be clarified as Keeps so its clear you're indicating you believe the topic passes WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t aware that that this article was created, so the draft was moved to Pixel Gun 3D. However, my article was made to be the passing one. I’m confused as though what happens if we change to keep, though. Will my article be moved here, or will that article redirect to mine? The topic passes WP:GNG, but this article’s sources doesn’t work. I did try to nominate this for speedy delete, but this deletion discussion was already in place. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You literally voted on this AFD, then moved your Draft to mainspace....... You were fully aware. Vote "Keep, but redirect", if you want, but what needs evaluated is whether "Pixel Gun 3D" is a notable topic, not whether one article is better than the other. -- ferret (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I’m not seeing the third party reliable source coverage necessary to meet the WP:GNG. Actively against the redirect suggested above as well - that should be deleted as well, as that also hasn’t been established as notable. (It’s the same thing under a different name.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both this and Pixel Gun 3D since they are about the same subject. I just don't see how this video game meets WP:GNG in any case. My WP:BEFORE brought me this [3] but that by itself is not enough (and the source is just listed as situational per WP:VG/RS). There is a big reaching over here to make this game notable, but it is not. Speedy redirect !votes should be discounted as they do not discuss the notability of the subject, just like Ferret has said. Analyzing the references from Pixel Gun 3D:
  • 1) A information about the number of downloads, but not a secondary source.
  • 2) A rehash of a press release, and comes from an unreliable website (no staff even listed).
  • 3) A single paragraph included which is: "To get started you can customize your character with a few Minecraft skins to choose from. Next you will pick which game mode you want to play. The options include Survival, Deathmatch, and Co-op. Each mode can have up to 10 people competing against one another online. Like any good shoot-em-up game there are a variety of maps and weapons to choose from. You can even create your own “server” for a game." I don't see editorial policy for this page, but the staff is listed. Either way, not WP:SIGCOV.
  • 4) Seems like an unreliable page as well. No staff listed, and the depth of the (short) coverage is as same as 3).
  • 5) WP:PRIMARY interview with the developer of the game. Does not count towards WP:GNG.
  • 6) Translating it through Google, it has 1 paragraph that says nothing about the game except "it is a charming game"/"test it and reply down in the comments if you like it or not", while rehashing features from the press release after. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin - this probably looks more complicated than it is. We’ve got two delete !votes due to the lack of reliable sources. And two people who want to redirect the subject...to itself. Essentially a “keep and rename”. But there’s no valid keep argument presented, nor any arguments presented that it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to a lack of notability mostly explained by others above; very little information can be found about this subject by searching. Redirecting is also a poor option for the same reasons. Geolodus (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc St. Jean[edit]

Marc St. Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While the article has refs the subject fails WP:Hockey as the highest league he played in was the ECHL which does not grant notability unless preeminent honours are achieved. Tay87 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another in a long line of articles on non-notable hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with above completely. Putting puck to ice in a low-level league isn’t enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Agree with previous comments. Fails both WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not meet notability criteria as per WP:NHOCKEY. Playing with a puck does not necessarily make you notable. Spyder212 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rickshawala (1993 film)[edit]

Rickshawala (1993 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability guideline for films. Only two sources I could find were on the page and are IMDb and Movie buff. Both sources are bare bones, really only saying the film exists, so don't have significant coverage (and per WP:NFSOURCES cannot then be used to determine notability). Most other sources through Google are for the later film of the same name or they are WP:CIRCULAR websites. Creator has created this article to promote Jayanta Nath, like other pages they have created which have been deleted recently through AfD. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I have found [4] but this source is not useful for defining notability, because it does not have significant coverage and WP:NFSOURCES states that these sources don't define notability. This still leaves no sources which define notability for this article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM because it lacks sufficient WP:SIGCOV or any real coverage at all except that it exists. There is nothing any editor could do to make this article have a place on Wikipedia, as the coverage just isn't there. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to California Gold. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislaus County Cruisers[edit]

Stanislaus County Cruisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. Team in local league with no claims of notability Rogermx (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is notable as the league was considered a fully professional just needs to be improved.Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Professional soccer teams are definitely notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Added a couple sources. The league they were in wasn't local, and they played in the U.S. Open Cup. This is effectively a keep vote, but [5] suggests a merge and redirect to California Gold. SportingFlyer T·C 23:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. As little as I think of the various sports notability guidelines, even those don't support keeping this. WP:NTEAM says, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline, and this fails that badly. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• They briefly received national coverage for playing San Jose Earthquakes in the U.S. Open Cup in 2000, and the Soccer America article shows they at the very least received local coverage in the Modesto paper during their time on this earth. The only coverage I can find on the contemporary internet is routine press coverage of their away matches, but considering this was nearly 20 years ago now that doesn't surprise me much. SportingFlyer T·C 04:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Coverage does not meet the GNG. Played in a non-professional league and best coverage was when they played an MLS team, but notability isn't achieved by one 5-0 loss in a soccer game.Sandals1 (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to California Gold per SportingFlyer, WP:PAGEDECIDE and [6]. In 2002, the Stanislaus County Cruisers changed their name to California Gold. That would explain the lack of internet sources to meet GNG under the old name. It's just one team, though, so it doesn't need two articles. Redirect the old team name to the new team name, and the content can be merged. Leviv ich 19:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator, I agree with merging this article to California Gold. Thanks for the research, Levivich! Rogermx (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't thank me, I copied off of SportingFlyer's !vote :-) Leviv ich 22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd side with a redirect but I don't see much reason to redirect to an unreferenced article.Sandals1 (talk) 17:45, 24 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Todd Burke[edit]

L. Todd Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't pass WP:JUDGE and none of the sources used appear to be reliable secondary sources. GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added two references, and there are plenty more out there. GregJackP Boomer! 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:JUDGE allows for state level judges. robertsky (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUDGE doesn't cover sub-statewide level judges, such as state judicial districts or county-level judges, so this is more a question of whether of not the subject meets WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

No, but the discussion on notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability states that state trial court judges for courts of general jurisdiction, which Burke is: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability." WP:JUDGE isn't the only criteria that we can look at. GregJackP Boomer! 04:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but there still isn't really much that indicates notability. Of the sources used, one is a legal directory entry, which pretty much any practicing attorney can have (1); (2)followed by the homepage of the city of Wilmington, NC (No mention of Burke at all); A "find a DUI lawyer" website (3); (4) a PDF of a lawsuit, (5) a passing mention in a blog by the American Bar Association, (6) another passing mention about the same subject in the local newspaper; and (7) an entry in an alumni newsletter. These aren't the references necessary to establish notability in my opinion. I also brought up WP:JUDGE because it was specifically used as the reasoning for keeping the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check Google News/Books/etc? First, the ABA Journal webpage is not a "blog"--it is the web presence of a print magazine that is published monthly. He's listed in several books, such as Roslyn Muraskin, Key Correctional Issues 170 (2005) (covering a DUI case); numerous news articles; in a law review article, and so on. Second, you brought up WP:JUDGE in your original statement suggesting deletion, you didn't bring it up as a response. GregJackP Boomer! 05:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a Matter of fact I did and I didn't believe I found enough to establish notability. My apologies on the ABA newspage but at the end of the day it is still a passing mention. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, WP:JUDGE, WP:GNG, etc. and passes WP:V (links= [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc)--PATH SLOPU 05:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources appear to meet WP:GNG as a state trial court judge. The ABA article only contains a passing mention about the subject in the article. The other articles do not show the nationalized or international coverage necessary to pass WP:JUDGE (The Washington Times link is to a picture of his courtroom [I presume] - and not about the subject). (Also see WP:POLOUTCOMES about local mayors as an equivalent [where judges, like mayors, are expected to receive routine coverage of their activities)). --Enos733 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the request for more opinions, I think this subject does not pass WP:JUDGE (not a state judge) and does not pass WP:GNG either. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject is not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 19:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interesting guy for sure, but just not notable. Working in government after having politician parents (notability is not inherited) and giving out a quirky court sentence do not make this man pass WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. He's an average local public figure, and none of the awards or honors he has received are significant. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations[edit]

List of Saini recipients of military awards and decorations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The topic is too specific that the list only has one entry. I don't find any reason to keep this list at all. KCVelaga (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I created the list as a split from Saini people in August 2010 when it looked like this [13], and was tagged to be split, which looked quite sensible. The list looked like this at the time: [14] with over 40 people listed as recipients of awards, and each one cited. Looking at the history, what has happened between then and now is that User:Sitush has spent six years cleaning up the article, removing insecure sources, and then removing those listed as they had no sources supporting them being Saini. I note that Sitush has done the same at List of Saini people which used to look like this: [15]. As Situshi has spent some time on these articles, it would helpful to have their insight into the situation. What appears to have happened is that articles and lists have been created about Saini people, but there is some doubt as to if they actually are Saini. This is not my area of knowledge, but I understand that castes are generally identified by surname, as indicated here: [16]. I can see it as plausible that some editors have felt it self-evident that if an individual's surname is "Saini" then they are part of the Saini caste, while others would feel that in order to be listed as part of the Saini caste there would need to be a reliable source which explicitly says "Foo Saini is a member of the Saini caste". This comes down to the Blue Sky debate: Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue and Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. One way round this would be to title the list List of recipients of military awards and decorations with a Saini related surname, though my thinking is that is probably what is implied in this and other caste related articles. I'm seeing both sides here, and will wait for Situshi to comment, but I'm inclined to thinking that this is a keep, and that many of the names removed should be restored. SilkTork (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think it has ever been accepted by the community that we can reliably associate caste with surname. A similar treatment has been given to numerous other articles that make this assumption and I know of no successful challenge to this. In any case, I find it obnoxious for Wikipedia to build a classification of people by caste into its structure. SpinningSpark 21:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Sitush/Common#Castelists explains and is based on longstanding consensus. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link Sitush, that seems to explain things quite well. SilkTork (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject is notable. I agree with silktork  that the names should be restored (see this version) and the article should be improved with more sources. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aman.kumar.goel: those prior names cannot be restored in the format then presented - please read the explanation I linked to earlier. Briefly, last name is not verification, living people must self-identify, claims of caste associations etc are not reliable sources. The list should probably be deleted (merge what remains in it, if valid) but if you must expand it then you're going to have to follow the longstanding consensus, not restore poorly sourced stuff and original research then try to find something to support those restorations. - Sitush (talk) 02:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. Sure, we've sources stating that "X, Y, and Z won Bharat Ratna" and that "X, Y, and Z have black hair", but that doesn't mean we should have a List of black-haired Bharat Ratna winners. Not to mention that caste publications such as Saini Jagat and sainionline.com are not acceptable sources. utcursch | talk 00:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV that this topic is notable in independent reliable sources. Based on the above conversation, it just seems like someone's attempt, I'm not claiming intentionally, to pigeonhole people into a group they never identified with in order to create an article. Including the living people that used to be on this list without proof they were members of this caste was a major BLP violation that cannot be repeated if the article is kept. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA MinervaELS (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Brahma[edit]

Riya Brahma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Actress who seems to fall under too soon, I'm trying to find ANYTHING on her, the only things I can find are about a film not even out yet. Wgolf (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment English sourcing was pretty sparse. Based on English sources alone, I would vote delete. However, I think its likely that Brahma has gotten far more significant coverage in Indian press, so I'm hesistant to vote delete based solely on the English sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG. I could not find any sustained WP:SIGCOV of her in a WP:BEFORE search I did, and any notability she might gain from the upcoming film Gwthar is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL at this point. I am not opposed to the article being recreated at a later date if she becomes notable down the road. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Thrills Incorporated. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Science Stories[edit]

Amazing Science Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Short lived science fiction magazine that ran for two issues. Due to its extremely short length, there's nothing else to ever say about the magazine other than what's on there. And it's so short lived, it's not really notable. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I created the article (I think when working on Amazing Stories, to disambiguate it), so for now I'll hold off on !voting keep or delete and wait to see what others think. Meanwhile, here's what I have in the way of sources:
  • SFE3, cited in the article in the earlier print edition. This is an (extremely short) article about this magazine.
  • Ashley, Mike (2005). Transformations:The Story of the Science-Fiction Magazines from 1950 to 1970. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-85323-779-4.: this just includes the magazine in a list of sf magazines; there's no discussion.
  • Tymn, Marshall B.; Mike Ashley (1985). Science Fiction, Fantasy and Weird Fiction Magazines. West: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-21221-X.: There's a half-page devoted to the magazine in this encyclopedia; it lists some of the stories and provides bibliographic information.

    Just realized this sounds like it's just an entry in a list; it's not. It's a discussion of the magazine, followed by some bibliographic information about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blackford, Russell; et al. (1999). Strange Constellations. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-313-25112-6.: mentions it on p. 64.

The magazine was mostly (but not entirely) a reprint of the Australian magazine Thrills Incorporated, which does not yet have its own article, but definitely should -- Tymn & Ashley have two and a half pages on it and there are more sources elsewhere. If the article doesn't survive this AfD, I think it would be reasonable to merge it into Thrills Incorporated when that article is created; or it could be moved to that name with an explanatory initial sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete Does not appear to have substantive sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The length of the run is unimportant – see WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. The subject appears in numerous histories of SF publishing, including the following. Andrew D. (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. The History of the Science Fiction Magazine
2. Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Weird Fiction Magazines
3. Transformations: The Story of the Science Fiction Magazines from 1950 to 1970
4. Strange Constellations: A History of Australian Science Fiction
5. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
6. The Science Fiction Magazines
7. The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction
8. The Complete Checklist of Science-fiction Magazines
9. The MUP Encyclopaedia of Australian Science Fiction and Fantasy
10. Time Machines, The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines From the Beginning to 1950

Commment: The issue with size is that, since it ran for exactly two issues, what else could possibly be said about it? Its history is so brief that nothing happened and it can be summarized in exactly 2 sentences. Thus I cite WP:PERMASTUB. The other issue is that most of the sources you cite are guidebooks and encyclopedias, which attempt to be thorough and name every single sci-fi source. Thus, they can't be used for notability, since such books list everything. Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that a two-issue magazine can have nothing interesting to say about it is demonstrably not true. Here are some GAs on very short runs: Space Science Fiction Magazine (one issue), Fantasy (1938 magazine) (three issues), Miracle Science and Fantasy Stories (two issues), Tops in Science Fiction (two issues), and 10 Story Fantasy (one issue). A couple of FAs on very short runs: Science-Fiction Plus (seven issues), and Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories (seven issues). I think the question is what the sources do say, and while you're right that most of the above simply include Amazing Science Stories in a list, both the SF Encyclopedia and the Tymn/Ashley Encyclopedia give the magazine a separate entry. So far I think the best idea is to make the magazine part of a future Thrills Incorporated article. It could also be part of an article on Pemberton's UK reprint magazines, of which there were several, but most of those are going to be covered separately anyway -- e.g. the Pemberton's edition of Planet Stories is described in that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is enough material for a Pemberton's article then I think that is a better idea than my suggestion of Thrills Incorporated even if information on Pemberton is already scattered across multiple articles. In any event, I am at WP:PRESERVE on this one. SpinningSpark 08:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have enough specifically about Pemberton's to be comfortable creating an article on it yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Thrills Incorporated and mark as needing expansion. This seems more like a footnote to the Australian magazine's story rather than independently notable. Thrills Incorporated itself is demonstrably notable. SpinningSpark 20:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Thrills Incorporated per Spinningspark and Mike Christie. Aoba47 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 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 Space: 1999. Sandstein 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999)[edit]

Moonbase Alpha (Space: 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Location for the tv series Space: 1999. Not independently notable. This is pure WP:FANCRUFT material, that belongs on a fan wiki. All we need is a disambig page for Moonbase_Alpha, with a brief mention of the location for the show, and that's it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/delete ridiculous depth of fancruft for a two-season show. Reywas92^Talk 06:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:FANCRUFT is an essay with no standing, not a policy-based reason to delete. The nomination makes suggestions for development of the topic and deletion would neither be necessary nor appropriate to do this. Our actual policies are WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. while WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP tell us that AfD is not a place to bring editing suggestions. Andrew D. (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrew D, let's try it this way. Where is the WP:GNG? The article cites only a couple newspaper articles in addition to episodes of the show. Are there GNG sources? Please identify them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Space: 1999 with very limited merge. The article is almost entirely in-universe description, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia per MOS:INUNIVERSE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE bullet #1. The only salvageable out-of-universe encyclopaedic content is the description of Asimov's criticism of the show's use of dark side of the moon. This can easily be merged to the already existing discussion of Asimov's scientific criticisms in the main article. SpinningSpark 20:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One independent reference is there to point the way to GNG. There also does seem to be enough non-primary sourcing to write an article. However most of that is written by the writers of the series, so it is not helping out GNG. A merge is not really appropriate as the target article is already big, and if this content was there it should be slit off into this article. Moonbase Alpha from NASA is probably a different thing. Other independent reference do exist like http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umext.html and https://medium.com/swlh/the-interior-design-of-moonbase-alpha-9c0d96119be9 which could also be counted as reliable. So it looks as if WP:GNG can be met by adding references and removing some in-episode OR material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a few sources, then that's just the first step. What you'd do is to add this to the main article on the show, then if that gets so huge because there's so many sources, then you make a new page. The location is not really notable independently of the show. So of course you'll find something, because sources on the show are likely gonna talk at least a little bit about the location of the show. But that's not enough to justify an entirely independent article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources you put forward is acceptable as a RS. The first is a fanboy site with entirely in-universe material, so no use for building an encyclopaedia article in any case. The second appears to be a social media site for designers. Whether that is an acceptable RS depends on whether the author, Federico Bo, gets a pass under WP:SPS as a recognised expert. I don't see any evidence that he is, he seems mostly involved with pushing blockchain currencies. His claims on the Italian designers involved in the Moonbase interior could be entirely his own speculation.

And good God no, I am not proposing a merge of the article in its entirety. As I said above, the only thing worth merging is a sentence or so on Asimov. The rest is in-universe description and should be dumped. My argument for removing the article is not based on its sourcing or notability, it is based on the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and in-universe articles definitely come under "not". If you think you can construct a proper encyclopaedic article you are welcome to do so, but this is not it and has to go. SpinningSpark 09:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov's reception is pretty valid, and that would go into a sentence or two in the reception for the page on the show itself. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the Space: 1999 article as a valid search term. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Are all these Space 1999 AfDs occurring because of the recent 30th anniversary release of the series? StrayBolt (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: I accidentally combined this DVD Retro Release Notice with this Blu-ray Release, both posted within 2 hours of each other on April 11, 2019. StrayBolt (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StrayBolt (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Quite a load of cruft for some minor show from the 1970s. User:SpinningSpark has it right. John M Wolfson (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the Space: 1999 article. There is no need for this fictional place in an old television program to have its own article. --PhobosIkaros ✉ 17:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Space: 1999. Spinning Spark has done an excellent job above arguing for this position, and I agree entirely. Rorshacma (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Space: 1999. Unless third-party, reliable sources can be located, this does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As a prop it was is used right from the beginning, indeed it a central tenet of the whole program and that included the interior based shots and for a large section of British teenagers it was the business, so it has stand-alone notability. The article itself could be easily trimmed by 20% or more. The people who are voting for delete perhaps don't know the effect this show had when it was aired. The base itself was featured in kids and crafting magazines and it was always on show and in kits. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not fame nor importance. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Main setting of a major series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The question is whether the subject is covered in depth by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Looking, I found that there are quite a lot of books and articles written about this television series, and there is a fair amount to say on the subject of its setting. Unfortunately, this article isn't saying it. Doing the research, I found books (ISBN 9780786455270 p. 93) explaining how the main set was difficult and expensive to light, so it was replaced with an alternative in the second season, with a purported in-universe explanation invented for having it that was never actually confirmed on-screen. Our article, in contrast, misrepresents fiction as fact. It provides that very in-universe explantion, sourced (as most of the article indeed is) to works of fiction, with nary a mention of the reality, which readers will not learn from Wikipedia. The fact, that I came across in another source (ISBN 9780786406005 p. 39), that one of the set props was later re-used in another U.K. science fiction series is entirely missing from our article. And so forth. There's possibly an article to be had here on the set designs and props, a sub-article of Space: 1999#Special effects, design and music about which the non-fiction sources indicate there is more for Wikipedia to say, but most of the content here in the article at hand is outright fiction, regurgitating stories and supplementary fictional works rather than giving readers factual information. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:FANCRUFT is not a WP:POLICY reason to bring an article to afd. This base was the main setting of a major series. The base was featured in piblications WP:NOTPAPER and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not derived, so it doesn't matter how major the series is. Sources will discuss the series, and discuss the setting somewhat, but the setting is not notable outside of the series. It does not have enough sources to pass GNG alone. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Space: 1999 per the well reasoned arguments put forward by SpinningSpark. This isn't a fan website and I myself have helped pare back cruft in entertainment topics I like despite the personal interest I have in them, which keep!voters here don't seem able to do. This topic clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG on its own, and a one or two sentence merge of Asimov's criticism to the main article is the only salvageable piece of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Death Star has an article and Mos Eisley (cantina) as well. Star Wars is certainly larger than life- howeverWP:FANCRUFT? WP:NOTPAPER so no reason to pare back IMO. WP:FANCRUFT is not a policy here at Wikipedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:51, 28 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page of the Presence[edit]

Page of the Presence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Page of the Backstairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor positions in the British royal household. Unsourced and of no apparent notability. If sourceable, possiby merge to Royal Households of the United Kingdom. Sandstein 16:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is a couple of pages in Sketches of her majesty's household (1848) but that's about all I could find besides passing mentions. Even that does not discuss the actual role very much; it's more about pay and promotion. Royal Households of the United Kingdom doesn't strike me as a practical merge target, that article is organised by specific royal households, and has little to say on the roles other than the very senior ones. A "list of minor characters" type article is what is needed for a merge target. SpinningSpark 18:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a broader article such as Positions in the British Royal Household or even just British Royal Household would be helpful - at least better than the current plethora of unsourced ministubs. WP:V mandates deletion if contested content cannot be sourced - and nobody here has been able to source this content. Sandstein 21:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most positions in the Royal Household are notable. See Category:Positions within the British Royal Household. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to provide some evidence for this position if you want your opinion to count per WP:OTHERSTUFF. SpinningSpark 17:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is, why single out this particular post when there are articles on all of them? That makes no sense and is not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's nothing here to retain as there are no sources. We don't keep original research on subjects, even if there's other similar stuff that's been notable in the past. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of references does not equal original research. A common misconception. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment develop the article and then I will circle back Lubbad85 (☎) 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are several articles relating to similar positions (Page of the Backstairs and Page of Honour for example) and while this article is clearly not sourced well, I think it needs some work before being nominated for deletion. I will spend some time looking for primary sources on this subject, as it seems potentially noteworthy. Skirts⁸⁹ 13:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both articles are unsourced stubs and are comprised entirely of OR. There is no demonstration that either topic passes WP:GNG as there is no sustained WP:SIGCOV of either group of employees or what they do. That there might be more such articles elsewhere is not an argument against deletion, but a weak cop out to save OR stubs some evidently like. And no, I didn't count that useless Independent citation as a source, as it tells us nothing of value. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Manor of Gittisham#Putt. czar 20:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Thomas Putt[edit]

William Thomas Putt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article makes no claim of notability, and the subject does not meet WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is notable in the context of British social history as the squire of a 4,000 acre estate and owner a major English country house redesigned by Sir John Soane. There are good inline citations and the article brings useful additional detail to the associated Wikipedia articles.Fuseemusee (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Manor of Gittisham#Putt, which currently has one line on the subject. Part of the present article is on his older brother, who is covered more fully there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Manor of Gittisham#Putt as there is not much here solely about the deeds of this particular Putt so does not seem independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:50, 27 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AOAart[edit]

AOAart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Organization lacking significant coverage in RS. I understand that my search may not have turned up anything because this organization is based in Beijing. However, it is totally unsourced and completely promotional. If sources can be found, it would be a good candidate to stubify. Citrivescence (talk) 05:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for now, there seems to be some mainstream coverage in Japanes and Chinese news sources, but I do not have the ability to evaluate them. We need someone who can read those to give an informed opinion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no references, and the listed domains in the page are dead-links. The fact they're defunct suggests it came and went Graywalls (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG as it has lacked sources for over five years and I found no sustained WP:SIGCOV in a WP:BEFORE search I did. This heavily promotional article also fails WP:NOPROMO, although that is ironically tempered by the fact that the organization appears to be defunct and this article no more then a relic to an old abuse of Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:20, 28 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mersbrass[edit]

Mersbrass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article of a non-notable company. I've been unable to find any significant third-party coverage. Zanhe (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A longstanding unreferenced article about a parts manufacturer. My searches are not finding better than routine listings such as a Weiku page (blacklisted, so not linked). Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:NCORP because it has been unreferenced for over 12 years and I found no reliable sources demonstrating sustained WP:SIGCOV of its business or products in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:34, 28 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere in Palilula[edit]

Somewhere in Palilula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article doesn't has much information. This article has been orphaned long enough. No citations to verify the casts and informations. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some reviews. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of multiple references to significant coverage including independent reviews in reliable sources so there is now no valid reason for the article to be deleted imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A quick search on the subject shows multiple secondary sources available, many of which were added recently. Reviews are also widely available. Spyder212 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Barnett[edit]

Pauline Barnett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Cannot find any sources that do more than mention subject incidentally. Rogermx (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, winner of notable award. There will be significant contemporary news coverage, even if you can't find it with a simple Google search. I have added Blomberg biography as a reference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Delete per nom. A Bloomberg listing is not particularly useful for establishing notability. Note: Rich Farmbrough created this article and a lot of other stubs for winners of the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, a award that doesn't appear to be all that significant. Many of these other winners' articles have been tagged for questionable notability, e.g. Pamela Neal, Janette Pallas, Nicholas O'Shiel, Anne Duncan, etc., and should be deleted too. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence anyone who gets this award is automatically notable, and many of the others should go too. Should otherwise be sources covering them besides just for the award. Unclear why there's The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (2011), etc. as well. Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added a couple of sources to the article. I don't see why the award would not qualify for WP:ANYBIO - it's a national award, not a local one, and there were 10 recipients of that award each year, in a population of about 60 million overall. Assuming that about 3/4 of the population were aged 20+, the award was given to 10 in 45,000,000 people, or 2.22%, which is surely notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as winner of notable award and User:RebeccaGreen has improved the article with more references giving credibility to its notability. Thanks MyanmarBBQ (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even though this article has been improved since nomination, I don't see any notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and I think this article falls under WP:NCORP as well - not even a notable business associated. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP is not for people, it's for organisations. The question is not whether the organisation/s she is associated with are notable, but whether she herself meets any notability criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you, perhaps I wasn't clear. I merely included that comment to indicate that not only is the subject not noteworthy, the company she is associated with isn't noteworthy either. Thanks! Skirts⁸⁹ 13:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This improved article still fails WP:GNG because the subject lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV of her life or career, and her "fame" revolves around WP:ONEEVENT - an award from the Queen of Britain. As notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED, there is no reason to hold this particular royal honor as an automatic grant of notability anymore then we would a 100th birthday card from the Queen (and yes, I know that is more common then this award, but my point still stands). Newshunter12 (talk) 05:45, 28 April 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 Mason family. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Mason VI[edit]

George Mason VI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Many of his relatives are notable--and are in fact major historical figures-- but I see no evidence he is. (Note that the similarity of names in his family makes searching rather difficult) . DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - His role in the ownership of the historic Mason estate at Gunston Hall is sufficient notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How THIS can get a weak Keep? Has anyone seen the references? Out of 4 references - three are from the official website of George Mason! I am new here but even I know that official website is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia rules Dariakupila (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added four more sources. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. From the article, his "accomplishments" appear to be being born into a notable family and inheriting an estate. Even the book The Five George Masons (which I can't view) seems to have only two mentions of his name. The rest of the sources are no better. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and simply put a mention in the Mason Family article of his existence. The nominated article talks about his family members, but where is the evidence that he's notable himself? As presented now, this entry does not constitute inclusion worthy per WP:INVALIDBIOGraywalls (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mason family. There are several casual mentions, and I believe it is sometimes possible to build an encyclopedic article from disparate casual mentions, but this is not one of those cases. Most of the encyclopedic information in this article is about his wife, not him. We only have birthdates, who he was related to, and a piece of property he owned. That does not help us understand the subject, and he does not otherwise appear to have any notability independent of his famous relatives. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect He is clearly not notable on his own to pass WP:GNG, but as the sixth George Mason a redirect to the Mason family article wouldn't be inappropriate as he is a part of that puzzle of relatives, despite being unimportant himself. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:00, 28 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policy & Internet[edit]

Policy & Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Minor e-mag. Tagged for no sources since 2013, and it's been 6 years and no one's fixed it. Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Journal is abstracted and indexed in Social Sciences Citation Index and Scopus. Clear meet of WP:NJOURNALS. Sources should be easy to add (see WP:JWG). --Randykitty (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added indexing info to the article, with 3 independent sources showing that this meets NJournals. I would suggest that the nom, Harizotoh9, withdraws this nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the relevant notability guideline, as argued above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 26 April 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Delran Township, New Jersey[edit]

Mayor of Delran Township, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A list of mayor for a township of less than 17,000 people. Most of the list is not even reliably sourced thus failing WP:V. Appears to contain WP:OR since even the Delran Historical Society (which I wouldn't consider reliable anyway) does not have the complete list on their website [17] None of the mayors appear to be notable by themselves either which means the entire list would fail the requirements of WP:LISTPEOPLE Rusf10 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I believe what's missing on the list is pictures of some of the mayors, not the mayors themselves.Jacona (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. None of these people is likely to get an article as mayor, so it's rather pointless to have a list of redlinks. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strictly speaking, the question of whether these people would qualify for their own standalone biographical articles or not isn't controlling on whether there's value in maintaining a list of their names or not — for closed-ended lists with defined inclusion criteria, like mayors of a place, it's more important that a list be complete than it is that it comprise exclusively blue links. (We do have the option of placing a "blue links only" restriction on open-ended lists that have a tendency to attract the addition of non-notable publicity seekers, like generic indexes of writers or musicians or people-from-city, but lists that are constrained by their own definitions to a specific and closed-ended set of topics, such as lists of holders of specific political titles, are allowed to contain redlinked or unlinked names.)
  Rather, the important problem here is that the list is not fully referenced in order to ensure that it is (and stays) accurate: if somebody were to edit this list to change any of the information in it, for the majority of the people here we would have no way of verifying whether that was a helpful correction or a vandalistic uncorrection. So if we can't actually find a complete list of Delran's mayors anywhere else to verify this against, then we can't keep it unless every name in the list gets referenced to at least one reliable source of its own. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Bearcat (talk and this reference, list of delran mayors. It references every mayor up to June 2016, which gets us into the internet age with plenty of sources.Jacona (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable guideline is WP:LISTBIO, which states "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the normal criteria established for that page. Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including Wikipedia:Trivia sections)." In other words, the inclusion criteria can be set in the article (for instance, it doesn't have to be bluelinks). A finite list like this is very different from a list of alumni that by nature could swell to a large number of entries were inclusion criteria like write the article first not applied.Jacona (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think the page needs deletion, merging it into Delran Township, New Jersey might be a better option.Jacona (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge into Delran Township, New Jersey. A verifiable list of mayors of a jurisdiction is appropriate for this project. Whether that list is a stand-alone article or contained within the article of the jurisdiction is a matter of editorial judgement (based on other policies and practices). My sense is the Delran Historical Society page contains an accurate list. --Enos733 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete Perhaps in a collapsable table, this is not exactly a notable position and the officeholders are not inherently notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- References available. A merge would make Delran Township, New Jersey too long.Djflem (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, per Bearcat. I'm can't find any guidance on notability of lists per se (someone please let me know if there is one; WP:LISTPEOPLE is about inclusion in a list, not about whether the itself should exist), but I'm inclined that if the topic of list (mayor of Delran Township) is non-notable, and most (or all) of the list members are non-notable, then we shouldn't have the list. Yilloslime (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Yilloslime said it better than I could. Neither the topic of the list, nor most of the members of it, are notable. Therefore there's no justification for the list itself. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Past guidance from the community has generally kept lists of mayors that are sufficiently sourced (but not lists of deputy mayors or councilmembers). As I wrote in WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mayor_of_Chesterfield, "Keep per WP:CSC (point 3). The list of mayors of a particular city or town can be verifiably complete and provides the 'retention of encyclopedic information' while each mayor may not warrant a separate article." I would encourage reading the discussion in WP:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Farmington, Missouri, which was closed as "move to draft space" because the sources were not present, and WP:Articles for deletion/Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (2nd nomination), which closed as "keep." --Enos733 (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main Delran Township article. John M Wolfson (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, and WP:LISTN because it lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV demonstrating these individuals collected as a group are notable outside historical society type fans within that small city. The sources are pretty much all local and do not demonstrate widespread notability for this topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:10, 28 April 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rooh Afza (film)[edit]

Rooh Afza (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFF. ∯WBG^converse 16:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NFILM. Etc. ——SerialNumber54129 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As the film notability guideline says, we should wait until prinicipal photography begins before having an article - there is little noteworthy to write about yet. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hardik Mehta. Redirect would be the best option as the film is definitely going to happen. There are various reliable sources confirming film’s announcement and it is even scheduled to release on 20 March 2020. When filming begins, it can be simply restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Smart LION (talk • contribs) 04:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:NFILM and future notability is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. Lots of films die at this stage, so it's not worth keeping such a barebones article around until we see what happens at some future point. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:17, 28 April 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 Koli people. Notability seems doubtful at best. Any content worth merging to the redirect target is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ghadasi[edit]

Ghadasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another non-notable caste, a handful of passing mentions but nothing significant. It's basically the equivalent of last name and people trying to put more weight behind something that just isn't. Praxidicae (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable article because ghadasi is subcaste of the Kolis of gujarat. GujaratiGangster (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep most likely notable per [18][19] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge By the article creator's own argument above, as a subcaste of the Koli people it would only seem to make sense to add any information about the Ghadasi to the Koli article under a heading rather than have an entire new article, especially if their only claim to notability is by being a subcaste. That might be true of most of what is under the category for the Koli people [20], in fact, since at the current moment there's at least one more AfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chuvalia, going on in relation to this topic. Userqio (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article fails WP:GNG because its sources are primarily just passing mentions and there is no sustained WP:SIGCOV that this caste is a notable group of people. Also, per WP:NOTINHERITED being related to a more notable group of people does not make this caste more notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chuvalia[edit]

Chuvalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable caste. Praxidicae (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable and subcaste of kolis of gujarat. GujaratiGangster (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - inadequate sourcing and seemingly not notable. The 1886 source is unreliable, as is that published by Popular Prakashan; the remaining source is mostly plagiarised from the Raj era sources it mentions. - Sitush (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal[edit]

Harsh Beniwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted after an AfD in September 2017. Still not seeing enough to demonstrate sufficient notability. Edwardx (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleting this? Now, if this deleted so please nominate other Youtubers pages for deletion like Ranveer Alhabadia, Sejal Kumar and many Youtubers. In this page many sources are available and he is in also a Hindi film. --Raju Jangid (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If other Youtubers seem not to meet our notability guidelines then anyone, including you, can nominate them for deletion. This discussion is about Harsh Beniwal, not those others. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Okay Thanks.--Raju Jangid (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furnace Party Incident (Fairmont)[edit]

Furnace Party Incident (Fairmont) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable hoax for a rather small neighborhood. Could not find any reliable third party sources to establish notoriety. Tinton5 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Miserably fails GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citilink Flight 800[edit]

Citilink Flight 800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable event in which nothing happened. Wikipedia is not a newspaper Andrewgprout (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – A drunken pilot removed from the cockpit and arrested is encyclopedic? I don't think so. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing more than local news.Charles (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:LASTING coverage. Daß Wölf 20:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Does not belong in an encyclopedia... WP:NOTNEWS. Spyder212 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some of the rationales above are wrong in that this was an international news item widely covered in the press. A drunk pilot incident could plausibly be notable, however in this case we are lacking WP:SUSTAINED coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Didn't expect a WP:BLP1E issue when I clicked on this article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:LASTING coverage. - MA Javadi (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Jephcott[edit]

Dominic Jephcott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Google search shows no reliable sources - those do refer to the different Jephcott, a businessman - this him is an actor. Many of the TV shows this article links to has made no mention of him there, and even if he was, it's unlikely he had played any significant roles.

Even before the user, who claims to be Jephcott himself, "updates" this article, I don't see any citations supporting anything stated on this page. See also Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. theinstantmatrix (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He meets WP:NACTOR. He has had significant roles in numerous TV series. Yes the article could be improved but deletion does not allow for that. MarnetteD|Talk 19:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subject fails WP:NACTOR. The only show he "starred" in was The Beiderbecke Affair and it is questionable if that show passes WP:NTV in order to qualify Jephcott's role on it. In searching for reliable sources, I found BFI but that's WP:ROUTINE, as is his graduation from RADA. This book lists him as an actor in stuff, as this does, and this talks about his aforementioned cop show. Again, he's just a guy that acted in stuff. I don't see WP:GNG here. The fact that the subject now wants to use this as a promotional vehicle motivated me to figure this out. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that criteria means there are 100000's of character actor articles that need AFD's CT. There is nothing in WP:NACTOR that says an actor has to have "starred" in a show. I have a couple dozen DVDs that include his performances and many of them are significant - though that word can be in the eye of the beholder. If this is the way it finishes then so be it. Apologies if this comes off as insulting because I don't mean it that way. Best regards to you and all that you do here at the 'pedia. MarnetteD|Talk 19:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: I bear no ill will towards you or the subject. There are lots of working actors, just as there are lots of judges, military officers, musicians, etc. They're not all notable. However, NACTOR requires "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and this subject does not pass that. You said "that criteria means there are 100000's of character actor articles that need AFD's" and yes, I'll !vote delete on all of them. The reason I'm a deletionist is that I find it's the result of strict adherence to our norms (policy, guidelines, or essays). For me to do otherwise would be arrogantly substituting my own judgement for the consensus of the community, even when I don't agree with the current rules. (I supported an SNG making ambassadors notable.) The subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and NACTOR. For me to say otherwise implicitly disrespects the will of my fellow editors. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Agree he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yet another British actor whose stage career is not represented in the article. The subject's own edits to the article provide information which can be searched for in reliable sources, and compiled into a suitable format for a WP article. It is clear that he does meet WP:NACTOR, having had multiple significant roles in multiple notable performances. Of those that are currently shown in the article, he had significant roles in The Scarlet Pimpernel, Good and Bad at Games, Inseminoid and Holby City. He had other significant roles in performances which don't yet have WP articles, including An African Dream. I will check his Royal Shakespeare Company appearances and other stage performances, and add them to the article, and also add sources. AfD is not about the current state of the article, though it often seems to be interpreted that way by some editors. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]